'Something Is Wrong with the Structure of the Military'

[[R_H]]

Spiegel Online

Chancellor Angela Merkel's party has granted its approval to Defense Ministry plans to abolish the draft in Germany. Commentators on Tuesday welcome the change, arguing that conscription is not consistent with the tasks today's military is asked to perform.

For months, German Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg has been trying to secure political backing for his plan to abolish the draft in Germany. Now, with the leadership of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats on Monday signalling its support for Guttenberg's plan, it looks like he may have succeeded.

The defense minister's intention to move Germany toward an all-volunteer army was the subject of a CDU leadership gathering near Berlin on Sunday evening. The conservative party's general secretary, Hermann Gröhe, said on Monday that the idea of getting rid of conscription was "discussed with great openness." Several CDU state governors who had previously been skeptical of the plan indicated their support at the meeting.

The CDU's approval comes on the heels of an about face on the issue from Guttenberg's own party, the Christian Social Union -- the Bavarian sister party of the CDU. In an interview with SPIEGEL published on Monday, CSU head Horst Seehofer said "conscription is a major imposition on the freedom of young people and is only constitutionally justifiable" should the country's safety be at stake. Only weeks ago, Seehofer had brushed Guttenberg's plan aside by saying that conscription was a part of Germany's identity and should not be abandoned.

Merkel's Support

Guttenberg has said he is not interested in pushing through a constitutional amendment to strike the passages regulating the draft. Rather, his plan envisions suspending the practice in addition to introducing a volunteer military service that will last from between 12 and 23 months. Merkel's junior coalition partners, the Free Democrats, have long indicated their support for abolishing the draft.

The CDU and the CSU will not formally adopt Guttenberg's position until a joint leadership meeting scheduled for later this month. The defense minister originally forged his plan as a way to cut the Defense Ministry budget in accordance with Germany's recently passed austerity plan. The length of conscription in Germany has been shrinking from its height of 18 months in the 1960s to its current length of just six months. Furthermore, drafted troops are generally not considered for deployment outside of Germany. Guttenberg hopes to save billions by eliminating the need to house, feed and train conscripts.

German commentators on Tuesday discuss the disappearance of the country's conscription army.

The business daily Handelsblatt writes:

"Because the Germany of today is surrounded by friends, we are no longer on the NATO front lines and do not need divisions stationed on the (eastern border) to engage tanks approaching from the east. We need a small, but highly professional force for missions overseas. Of utmost importance is the most modern equipment, sufficient air transport capacities and a navy that can do its part to help secure global trade routes. None of these tasks can be performed by conscripted soldiers, they need to be performed by well-trained professionals."

"This is a realization that both generals and defense ministers have stubbornly resisted since the fall of the Iron Curtain. The result is an overstretched and underfinanced army that still retains the profile of a force designed to defend its country's borders, but which must nevertheless take part in missions abroad -- an army which has resigned itself to doing everything, but doing nothing very well. Money is short everywhere, a fact that is made obvious by an extreme, and dangerous, shortage of equipment. The fact that only 6,700 soldiers in and army of 252,000 can be sent abroad at any given time shows clearly that something is wrong with the structure of the military. Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg has correctly understood the sign of the times."

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"How quickly times change. In the early summer, when Guttenberg first went public with his plans, it seemed like a kamikaze mission. Conscription was considered to be a sacred cow of the conservatives.... But the sensational respect he enjoys among German citizens lent his arguments additional weight as did the knowledge that Chancellor Merkel was solidly behind him. His political style also helped. Finally, someone came out and said exactly what he wanted. Who dares wins."

Conservative daily Die Welt writes:

"The nostalgic invocation of the usefulness of conscription could no longer stand up to the facts: When fewer than 7,000 out of a total of 250,000 soldiers are available for missions abroad; when just 14 percent of young men are drafted; when even the majority within the military itself supports reform -- in such a case, renewal is unavoidable."

"Guttenberg has won an internal party victory. But he is only halfway home. A successful reform of the German military is much more than just the abandonment of conscription. State politicians will no doubt demand a price for their consent -- and the last word has not yet been spoken when it comes to the ultimate size of Germany's revamped military.... Already, some state politicians are demanding that they be compensated for the closure of barracks with federal subsidies. Yet the trigger for the reform debate was Berlin's desire for spending cuts. It is much too early to praise Guttenberg for his success."

The left-leaning daily Berliner Zeitung writes:

"Getting rid of conscription in an era where the German military is sent on missions to crisis areas across the globe is the correct move to make. It is now important for the government to take the next step as well and close the 50 military bases that no longer make military sense. But one wonders if Guttenberg has the necessary courage for such a step. Loud protests from local and state politicians are unavoidable."

Interesting news. Hopefully this will spur some serious discussion here in Switzerland about switching over to a volunteer force. If 6 months isn't enough to properly train a conscript in Germany, then 18 weeks (the minimum here, elite infantry do 24 weeks, otherwise it's 21 weeks) is a joke.

[His Divine Shadow]

Why, are you against swiss conscription? I always thought it a very good model and something I quite admired about Switzerland.

Personally conscription is the best option for a purely defensive military, I feel it involves more of the countrys inhabitants in it's defense. And we're not just limiting ourselves to the 6-12 months of conscription in Finland either, afterwards we also have a significant reservist activities, many based around voluntary resevist clubs. I believe in Finland conscription is supported by the majority of people according to a recent debate on the subject, most young people even seem to support it. Since we have no interest, or atleast we shouldn't, in involving ourselves in every hotspot on earth it's a system that is ideally suited to many countries, perhaps not Germany though.

[LaCroix]

I agree with the plan.

It is a serious waste of time and resources to train everyone just to have him drop out and forget everything instantly.
It would cost about the same to have a 'real' army in place, and you wouldn't wind up with a force of an average experience of a few months... (And probably less accidents and scandals about soldier behavior)

Drafts are a wartime instrument, and not appropriate for the current threat situation in Europe.

[Serafina]

Interesting news. Hopefully this will spur some serious discussion here in Switzerland about switching over to a volunteer force. If 6 months isn't enough to properly train a conscript in Germany, then 18 weeks (the minimum here, elite infantry do 24 weeks, otherwise it's 21 weeks) is a joke.

21 weeks? That's not even five months.
Then again, the basic training in the Bundeswehr is just three months long. But IIRC, you have regular training after that, so at least you keep the skills.

The main (professional) argument against conscription (in the current debate) seems to be that it is too expensive and offers little in return. Most of the people who go trough it never join the military, so all the money that has been spent on their (currently 9-months long) training is wasted. Since we won't need a large army which would require conscription like we did during the Cold War, having a large pool of reservists is useless. The money spent on them is better used to equip and train professional soldiers.

And for the people who don't know: Currently the german constitution contains conscription for all males. Alternatively, you can do civil service (working in retirement homes, hospitals and the like). Both are currently 9 months in lenght and are not followed up with any training after that.

[Thanas]

They slashed that to six months, which is even more of a joke. Just when you have finished training them, they are gone.

Back in the cold war, conscription made sense. But with the current costs for weapon systems and with all the missions abroad (and no need to invade Poland again....yet) we do not need a mass volunteer army.

Especially when every professional soldier position already has about 3 applicants waiting.

[Shroom Man 777]

On the other hand, civil service isn't that bad a thing either. I learned a lot about being a decent human being in nuersing. While conscripting people to the military is kind of sucky, certainly doing some form of light service for the good of society isn't that bad.

[Thanas]

That might be true if a lot of the positions are not the menial stuff that actually takes away jobs.

For example, if you enter the civil service and become a nurse, you won't get to do much besides wheeling people or prepping beds.

Which, while fine, is not what you want the smartest people to have to do for nine/six months of the most productive period in their life. Especially when it gives the girls an unfair competitive advantage seeing as how they get in and out of university earlier (due to the messed up dating system, you sometimes have to wait a year after your civil service before you can start your choice of study).

Also: Your skills atrophy. I was lucky, I worked in a library and as assistant to a surgeon, so I was allowed to do a lot of research and intellectual work. Still, my skills atrophied something dreadfully. Now think about how it must be for somebody who is doing nothing but wheeling beds all day.

[Shroom Man 777]

Yeah... shit, speaking of atrophy I think I've gotta get a job soon.

Perhaps this should be applied to people on welfare or the homeless living in shelters or something? Or petty criminals. I dunno. I'm probably not talking about proper conscription or mandatory service. I'm probably not being on-topic with the thread too. Nevermind, then.

[His Divine Shadow]

Interesting news. Hopefully this will spur some serious discussion here in Switzerland about switching over to a volunteer force. If 6 months isn't enough to properly train a conscript in Germany, then 18 weeks (the minimum here, elite infantry do 24 weeks, otherwise it's 21 weeks) is a joke.

21 weeks? That's not even five months.

In case you didn't know, swiss conscription is stretched out for like a decade, people train a few weeks every year for a very long time. When you do it like that the training is going to stick better despite the time when looked at as a lump sum is smaller.

[Serafina]

Interesting news. Hopefully this will spur some serious discussion here in Switzerland about switching over to a volunteer force. If 6 months isn't enough to properly train a conscript in Germany, then 18 weeks (the minimum here, elite infantry do 24 weeks, otherwise it's 21 weeks) is a joke.

21 weeks? That's not even five months.

In case you didn't know, swiss conscription is stretched out for like a decade, people train a few weeks every year for a very long time. When you do it like that the training is going to stick better despite the time when looked at as a lump sum is smaller.

Um..EXCUSE ME, but i genereally appreciate it if people actually read my posts. And i mentioned that they have further training right after the sentence you quoted:

21 weeks? That's not even five months.
Then again, the basic training in the Bundeswehr is just three months long. But IIRC, you have regular training after that, so at least you keep the skills.

I think in total it's something like 270 days until you are 39 or 40, with the possiblity to do all of it at once in 300 days.

Still, i do not see the need for any first-world (or most second-world) countries to have conscription. The odds of actually being attacked by another nation are next-to-nothing right now. Meanwhile, modern armies require more and more specialized skills that conscripts, even with regular training, just can't provice. In the end, you wind up training lot's of basic grunts - which you need neither in reality nor theory. And the money used for that is better spent elsewhere. Plus all those things Thanas managed, tough i think that military training can have some use in civil life as well, it's just not worth the money and time.

[His Divine Shadow]

I thought you where saying the bundesweher had three months training, then regular training after that (three more months).

[Serafina]

I thought you where saying the bundesweher had three months training, then regular training after that (three more months).

Ah, okay.
Well, i was saying

But IIRC, you have regular training after that, so at least you keep the skills.

The YOU was referring to [R_H] (who is from Switzerland) and hence to the swiss conscription system. I also thought it was obvious that i was not referring to german conscription, given that it does not work that way, and my further argument about loosing the trained skills anyway.

Oh, and i just noticed that my last post sounded a bit too angry, which was not my intention. My apologies for that.

[[R_H]]

Why, are you against swiss conscription? I always thought it a very good model and something I quite admired about Switzerland.

Personally conscription is the best option for a purely defensive military, I feel it involves more of the countrys inhabitants in it's defense. And we're not just limiting ourselves to the 6-12 months of conscription in Finland either, afterwards we also have a significant reservist activities, many based around voluntary resevist clubs. I believe in Finland conscription is supported by the majority of people according to a recent debate on the subject, most young people even seem to support it. Since we have no interest, or atleast we shouldn't, in involving ourselves in every hotspot on earth it's a system that is ideally suited to many countries, perhaps not Germany though.

I think the way it is here is a joke. Personally, I don't believe someone with a total of 42 weeks (until you're moved over to the reserves) in uniform would be of much use during any sort of serious conflict. We have it because it's tradition etc. I hope none of our politicians are deluded enough (that maybe asking too much of them) to think that 18-24 weeks of uninterrupted service plus 3 weeks a year for 7 years in uniform is going to produce an effective, competant military capable of fighting. I also don't like that it's assumed that you do your service right out when you're 18 or 19 (unfair for males). I'd like to do mine when I'm done my bachelors at least, preferably when I'm done studying. I have to pay to defer though, which means another tax (or in my case 200CHF because I don't earn enough), and I can only defer for 3 years.

If men have to serve (in the military, in civil service or in emergency service), then women should have to as well. Afterall, both genders enjoy the same rights.

[His Divine Shadow]

Can't really say I really think it's unfair to males. Nor do I think it's a joke for a defensive army, we get by fine on 6 months, you don't need to know much more than to follow orders, point and shoot to be an effective defensive army, there is also the core of professionals in most conscript armies as well.

In Finland you also always have a batch of conscripts in training and another one that's just out of training with fresh training, so those troops are going to be recalled first in the event of an invasion or other disaster, while the others that have been out of the service a longer while will be called in as reserve troops and given refreshment training. There are also the reservist clubs that will have fresh shooting skills that can be utilized and now we also have another type of reservist organisation that conduct regular combat drills with volunteer reservists.

You're not going to be invanding anything with an military like this but that's just fine by me.

[Simon_Jester]

The one troublesome issue is that an army needs technical specialists: maintenance people, tank crews, operators for air defense systems, and so on. Those jobs are liable to be more demanding in terms of training and technical expertise; are they going to be filled by conscripts, or professional long-service types?

[ray245]

That might be true if a lot of the positions are not the menial stuff that actually takes away jobs.

For example, if you enter the civil service and become a nurse, you won't get to do much besides wheeling people or prepping beds.

Which, while fine, is not what you want the smartest people to have to do for nine/six months of the most productive period in their life.

Also: Your skills atrophy. I was lucky, I worked in a library and as assistant to a surgeon, so I was allowed to do a lot of research and intellectual work. Still, my skills atrophied something dreadfully. Now think about how it must be for somebody who is doing nothing but wheeling beds all day.

But won't the same thing applies if you are in the army as well? It's not like you will get the opportunities to do some intellectual or research work.

Sigh, I am not looking forward towards my enlistment date. Spending my next two years in the army is going to ensure that my skills will atrophied quite badly.

[Ace Pace]

But won't the same thing applies if you are in the army as well? It's not like you will get the opportunities to do some intellectual or research work.

Sigh, I am not looking forward towards my enlistment date. Spending my next two years in the army is going to ensure that my skills will atrophied quite badly.

I have no idea why people seem to think that the military is basically all grunts walking around in the mud. Any modern military has enough positions where research oriented work is required, places for intellectual work. Signal corps are usually full of complex positions, to give one example.

[LaCroix]

Example. My class, 15 guys with an economics degree. All spent 9 months waling around in the mud or driving tanks.
A friend of mine - chemist. Spent 9 months walking in the mud.

In Austria, there are NO complex positions available for the conscripts, these are filled with volunteers with multi-year enlistment. Conscripts are grunts or vehicle operators, but they get no research oriented work or anything. You spend 9 months intellectually idling, and all you learn apart from marching and shooting, is how to make your bed and to drink with your friends and smoke(as smokers get a cigarette break every now and then, while non-smokers have to continue with the stuff they are doing - seriously!)...

[ray245]

But won't the same thing applies if you are in the army as well? It's not like you will get the opportunities to do some intellectual or research work.

Sigh, I am not looking forward towards my enlistment date. Spending my next two years in the army is going to ensure that my skills will atrophied quite badly.

I have no idea why people seem to think that the military is basically all grunts walking around in the mud. Any modern military has enough positions where research oriented work is required, places for intellectual work. Signal corps are usually full of complex positions, to give one example.

I know. However, not everyone would get assigned to those kind of position, especially if you are just a conscript. Those vocation is usually assigned to people who have signed up for the Army. However, even if you are not a grunt out field, there is still quite a high chance you will be doing other menial work in the army.

Take for example, drivers, being in charge of the armoury and all the warehouse.

Example. My class, 15 guys with an economics degree. All spent 9 months waling around in the mud or driving tanks.
A friend of mine - chemist. Spent 9 months walking in the mud.

In Austria, there are NO complex positions available for the conscripts, these are filled with volunteers with multi-year enlistment. Conscripts are grunts or vehicle operators, but they get no research oriented work or anything. You spend 9 months intellectually idling, and all you learn apart from marching and shooting, is how to make your bed and to drink with your friends and smoke(as smokers get a cigarette break every now and then, while non-smokers have to continue with the stuff they are doing - seriously!)...

It will be even worse if you have to go into the army before you entered University/college. I wonder if there is any research findings about how conscription reduce the productivity of the working population.

[Patroklos]

Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg

What does "zu" mean in the Defense Minister's name?

[LaCroix]

Nobility

[Thanas]

Specifically, nobility which managed to hang on to their possessions ever since they became ennobled. Usually denotes old nobility that has been ennobled since several centuries.

[xt828]

Thanas, I've seen a few names from back in the day which were "von und zu" - I always wondered what that meant, and how it differed from the usual "von". Also, is the Dutch "van" equivalent to "von" or is that a false association?

[Siege]

No, the Dutch version just means "from", and it can be a prefix to pretty much any place you can think of: van Gelre (from the Gelderland province), van Dalfsen (from the town of Dalfsen), van Dijk (from the dike over there)... Anything, really. So in 99% of all cases it was just something people found neat and descriptive when Napoleon came marching around demanding everybody make up a last name, and has nothing to do with nobility whatsoever. Of course there's a bunch of folks still around with stuffy names like "Huyssen van Kattendijke" or "van Voorst tot Voorst" who are barons or knights, but equally there's nobles around who are pretty much unrecognizable from the surname alone, so it's not something you can go by (although the combination of a medieval first name and a peculiar last name is a dead giveaway... Quite a lot of these folks seem to love naming their children after long-dead people from the 14th century).

[Thanas]

Thanas, I've seen a few names from back in the day which were "von und zu" - I always wondered what that meant, and how it differed from the usual "von". Also, is the Dutch "van" equivalent to "von" or is that a false association?

Von und zu is the complete Title. See above for the explanation and how it differs from the usual von. Guttenberg for example is "Freiherr von und zu Guttenberg".