You're telling me that inexperienced draftees are incapable of being trained?
No, I mean that a short mandatory 2 year period in the military barely allows for the proper training that is required for modern counter-insurgency warfare in an urban setting. Do you agree ?
Perhaps. But maybe if we returned to the tried-and-true method of winning wars by defeating the enemy utterly and completely, and that every servicemember was in until the enemy surrendered unconditonally, I submit that we would both win wars a whole lot more quickly and efficiently, and that the 2-year mandatory period would become moot.
Is that what you think training in World War II consisted of?
Would you care to provide us with documentation for this interesting hypothesis?
I was exaggerating. Opposing the amount of knowledge required then, compared to now. Do you agree ?
No. Training in World War II consisted of basic training or boot camp, followed by advanced training in the members' specialty, and then, in the case of members in the combat arms, constant, perpetual, incessant training for the next operation in between actually fighting specific engagements. WWII soldiers spent twice as much time training as they did fighting.
As for what you needed to know then as opposed to now, sure, the technology is more complex, but training is training. Again: if everybody (and I mean everybody
) is in for the duration, it doesn't matter.We need to divest ourselves of this idea that wars are won in six months, or we give up and go home.