Replies

I sense some hostility towards those who have served.

I’ll ask you again, if you were king (or queen), what would you have done differently than what the administration did as for the deployment of troops/units?

Your dad served when there was a draft. Would you have pushed for conscription after 9-11?

I said I was curious. I am a historian, not a king. I am not hostile. That is just a cop out. Criticism is not always from hostility, and I must say, you'd better get used to it. When this is over the miitary is sure to get a rectal exam, because they seem to be doing things to lose.

I do not have enough info to answer your question. I would like to see a cost benefit analysis of the rotation policy. Asking about the draft is like teachers always asking for money. Why would anyone want to throw more people at a problem that is not clearly defined? I have always thought that the miitary didn't want a bunch of unskilled draftees.

The only defense you have offered for this rotation is unit cohesion. I am sure that is not the only reason. It also seems to involve readiness and troop job satisfaction. I get the impression that it affects reinlistment rates. However, one can still ask if rotation is the best way to achieve cohesion. What did armies do before air transport?

I would be very leary of your 180day ave for WWII. My dad was drafted late as he was in his 30's and had two children. He was gone over 2 years in Europe. He wouldn't have wished that on anyone else. They shipped over and that took weeks. Rotating was not an option. If someone kept the casualties in the stats that would make their ave deployments seem shorter.