• masquenox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    For the most part wars are better fought by paid professionals.

    That only goes for dirty wars that you have no good reason to fight.

    It has much to recommend it. It creates a shared experience in otherwise fragmented societies, breaking down barriers of class, race and gender.

    The US would like to disagree.

    It can be used to instil the values of a country in its population.

    In other words… nationalist brainwashing.

    And it subjects a pampered population

    Only a boomer could think this.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      To you first point… are you really saying that professional troops are less effective than untrained conscripts who really don’t want to be there?

      Cuz that much at least is true.

      Ukraine might be justified- and it might be necessary and even right- to have conscription… but a professional army would have been much more effective, at least at the start of the war.

      • masquenox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        are you really saying that professional troops are less effective than untrained conscripts who really don’t want to be there?

        Firstly… there is absolutely no rule that says conscripts have to be untrained, just like there’s no rule that says a conscript wouldn’t necessarily want to be there - but that’s irrelevant to the question at hand.

        More importantly, yes - a citizen army can be more effective than a professionalized one. Napoleon Bonaparte’s armies proved that to the world to such a degree that military theorists of the time literally thought the professional military obsolete. Of course, the problem with a citizen army is that you have to animate the citizenry with a cause that can actually be justified - kind of a difficult thing to do if you’re waging colonialist wars that only benefit the wealthy half-way around the world. Which is what a professional military is good for - that’s why the US didn’t experience the same level of revolt in the ranks during the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan as they did during the war on Vietnam.

        but a professional army would have been much more effective

        Ukraine did have a professional army at the start of the war - almost all countries do. Not even NATO would be able to defeat Russia with a purely professionalized force - that’s pure fantasy.