Modern Romanian Army...

[Victor]

QUOTE

Those armies are vulnerable... If your small and professional force is encircled and destroyed, what will happen next, taking in consideration that your citizens have no idea of warfare

You have a really big imagination!
As a matter of fact the citizens today have no idea of warfare whatsoever. The kind of training they receive (that is if they receive any in the conscript units) is totally insufficient. I can give you countless examples from people I know, what kind of "training" they received. Some fired a weapon only because they insisted to do it. Most of the present conscript units are not battle worthy.

QUOTE

the creation of \"mercenary\" armies would mean national suicide. Armies motivated by money are more dangeroulsy inclined to treason, just considering what the Americand did in Iraq, with a conscript army (buying some generals, in order to sabotate plans of resisting in Bagdad)

That one is a killer! I wonder with what else you will come up next!
The officers were always professionals, so it does not really matter if the soldiers are conscripts or not. Does it? (according to your own argument)
You can be sure that the ones that joined and will join the new army are not mercenaries, but many are people who like the military and want to make a career out of it. They are volunteers.

QUOTE

The suicide phenomenon is not really dued to conscription, or military service, but to the nation's moral state

What does national moral state have to do with a kid blowing his head off because his girlfriend left him or because he can't take it anymore and wants to get out of the army one way or the other? These people had problems and had no place in the military.

QUOTE

Suicides and desertions have always existed

Well, we did not have a professional army in the past, did we?

[tempesta]

A big and and strong army is just too expensive for Romaina in this times.
And problems with neighbour countries are more likely to be solved (if such problems will develop) by diplomatic and/or economic pressures.

[inahurry]

QUOTE

That one is a killer! I wonder with what else you will come up next!   The officers were always professionals, so it does not really matter if the soldiers are conscripts or not. Does it? (according to your own argument)   You can be sure that the ones that joined and will join the new army are not mercenaries, but many are people who like the military and want to make a career out of it. They are volunteers.

You should understand the difference between a "mercenary" army (obviously it was a figure of speech but with enough truth within) and a national army. History doesn't end because a Fukuyama said so, similarly because today we have computers and satellites it doesn't mean a modern army is composed only by PhDs. The "grunt" is the one who makes the difference. The bulk of infantry, still the "queen of battle" is made by average people with a specific training that doesn't exceed the intellectual requirements of a high school graduate. Most of the knowledge the best soldier in a "professional" army needs is acquired over 1 year training. As with everything else repetition and experience will improve the skills.
Romania, exactly because doesn't have the financial power, needs a large base of recruitment, just in case. Reforming the training and allowing more flexibility is one thing, destroying or at least diluting the national feeling and the responsibilities taught by military training is an entirely different one. By the way, Iraq war proved and I think it will continue to prove some interesting things. If you read more objective sources than CNN-likes you'd know all Iraqi resistance stopped, over night, 2 days after the Russian embassy was evacuated. Until then not one single significant city was captured in its entirety, not one. My guess is the Russians ensured some of the intelligence Iraqis needed (just an hypothesis). And the guerilla war that started immediately afterwards, in a programmed fashion, will force eventually the Americans out, it's just a matter of time. What Iraqis have, beside their stronger motivations, is only one thing - they had nation wide military training. Any country with more favorable terrain conditions than Iraq would pose horrible problems to any occupation army. And you don’t always need to fight the most powerful army in the world.
Romania’s history is pretty clear on the topic - we didn't have an army only during the Fanariot period - the darkest one. We re-entered, as a modern nation, in the chorus of nations only when we had an army. All through the history, in the most important battles, a core of "specialists" or mercenaries, if they were present, was helped by the "popular" forces. The best results were obtained when training seconds courage. Tradition motivates a more efficient training and organization. Tradition is not cultivated through permanent hiatus as an only professional army will create. Any protracted war needs large human resources. A clever policy could ensure us no blitzkrieg directed against us will succeed but after that, with no trained population we are ‘kaput’ or it will cost us an arm and a leg. And Romanian army is becoming a mercenary army also because of the way it is used, deployed in areas were we have no business to be present. The difference is we pay for that not the ones who “hire” them. And the cost for these adventures is tremendous. Those money could be spent far more efficiently.

[tempesta]

The best example I knew of a strong national army is the Israeli Army. But in Israel the military service is 3 years long and the training standards are high. There are also frequent concentrations and drills. And the core of the army is still formed by professional soldiers.
Such an army as the Israeli Army needs a big military budget, and unlike Romania, Israel has such a defense budget (with the help of US subventions). They also have a good reason for keeping and training such a defence force:they are surrounded by hostile states, which, in my opinion, is not the case of Romania.
Nationwide military training is good only if the state can afford to do it right. I think that as long as the situation in Romania doesn't permit a good trainig of conscripts the compulsatory military service is pointless. A good trained volunteer is better than maybe 3 undertrained and unmotivated conscripts (I consider the ones who join the army by their own will as volunteers, not mercenaries).
As far as i know, in a mobilization situation in popular army many of the officers will be reservists, not professionals. And with officers trainded for only six months, such an army will not perform very well. Also the size of the army is limited by the available equipment, and the quantity of equipment available for the Romanian army is limited. A large, uderequiped, undertrained conscript army is not what Romania needs.

[inahurry]

A lot of false premises there.

1. It doesn't have to be that expensive to train them. The high costs are still with the weapon systems (to buy them and maintain them).

2. Then there is the pay - high salaries motivate the "volunteers" (most of them), no one would work and possible risk his life for years for peanuts. The conscripts would "sacrifice" 1 year of their life and a few weeks now and then.

You make it sound like only the rich countries can have armies. If this is the case we can't even afford that small army you advocate.

It is unclear what would be the purpose for the Romanian army you envision. You say we have no ennemies and no money so what's the need for the army, just to be sent in all kind of forgotten places for the whims of Americans?

When we had a defense industry we covered part of the defense costs through exports, now we complain we don't have the money after the mentioned industry was destroyed under foreign pressure? Would be ridiculous if it weren't sad. I suppose you're aware of how irritated the Americans were during Ceausescu over the national defense doctrine ? I read the study at the Congress Library, maybe it is still available. They were irritated not because we posed an external threat but because that doctrine made us a hard to be threatened country. It suited an independent policy and this kind of policy is exactly what all major powers (US being the most formidable and worlwide present today) detest.

[Geto-Dacul]

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

You have a really big imagination!

More productive!

QUOTE

As a matter of fact the citizens today have no idea of warfare whatsoever. The kind of training they receive (that is if they receive any in the conscript units) is totally insufficient. I can give you countless examples from people I know, what kind of \"training\" they received. Some fired a weapon only because they insisted to do it. Most of the present conscript units are not battle worthy.

That's because the government reduced the time and quality of the military service. Teenagers are less conscious those days of their duty and honor, in the defense of the country, in case of war. That's a moral thing, you may agree or not.

QUOTE

The officers were always professionals, so it does not really matter if the soldiers are conscripts or not. Does it? (according to your own argument)   You can be sure that the ones that joined and will join the new army are not mercenaries, but many are people who like the military and want to make a career out of it. They are volunteers.

I agree that Romania must have a professional army, but so small as the foreign powers are dictating us! And also, in case of war (as history proved us) this small army formed of "volunteers" would clearly be inable of defending Romania. Technology is not the only key of success. In case of total war, inevitably, a part of the population must participate in the defense of the country. If these people do not have a minimum training for it, than, kaput!

QUOTE

What does national moral state have to do with a kid blowing his head off because his girlfriend left him or because he can't take it anymore and wants to get out of the army one way or the other? These people had problems and had no place in the military.

Suicide, as analized by the German scientist Durkheim, is partly dued to Sociology. Their acts reflect the state of the society... And that's a clear phenomenon since 1989!

Best regards,

Getu'

[Victor]

QUOTE

That's because the government reduced the time and quality of the military service

Imagine how many more suicides there would have been if the time they had to serve was longer. Not to mention the number of suddenly "medically inadequate" persons.
The quality was reduced because the budget is the one it is and it is administered the way it is. No more comments!

QUOTE

Teenagers are less conscious those days of their duty and honor, in the defense of the country, in case of war. That's a moral thing, you may agree or not.

Teenagers today are less conscious of many things! This is why a volunteer force would be a good thing for us.

QUOTE

And also, in case of war (as history proved us) this small army formed of \"volunteers\" would clearly be inable of defending Romania. Technology is not the only key of success. In case of total war, inevitably, a part of the population must participate in the defense of the country. If these people do not have a minimum training for it, than, kaput!.

History also showed us that a conscript army was incapable of defending Romania on some occasions. It depends on the circumstances.

Technology is the key to success. I am future engineer, so what else would you expect from me?
The case of total war is not applicable in Romania, simply because I do not see such an immediate threat to us.

But you see, many conscripts today do not even have the "minimum training" you mention.

QUOTE

It doesn't have to be that expensive to train them. The high costs are still with the weapon systems (to buy them and maintain them).

The cost/day of sustaining a conscript and a professional soldier are not very far apart.

QUOTE

Then there is the pay - high salaries motivate the \"volunteers\" (most of them), no one would work and possible risk his life for years for peanuts. The conscripts would \"sacrifice\" 1 year of their life and a few weeks now and then

Fewer and fewer are willing to sacrifice one year of their lives. But whatever you say, a conscript will never be as efficient as a professional.

QUOTE

And Romanian army is becoming a mercenary army also because of the way it is used, deployed in areas were we have no business to be present. The difference is we pay for that not the ones who “hire” them. And the cost for these adventures is tremendous.

Kossovo and Bosnia are in our backyards. Why would not we have any interest in stabilizing the region?
The contribution in Afghanistan (as our pro-US attitude, the sell of Sidex to Ispat and others) contributed a lot to our acceptance in NATO.

QUOTE

Those money could be spent far more efficiently.

Maybe another "rehabilitation" of the highway to Pitesti, another "equipment updating" at Portile de Fier or the Dracula Park and palm trees at Mamaia?

[inahurry]

Money better spent for the MILITARY.

Selling the Sidex along with many other strategic industrial or financial strongholds are indeed reasons why we should abandon the idea of an army. We already lost more than an open conflict could inflict.

Our "backyards", like Bosnia, are in fact areas we don't need stabilized at all. An artificial creation like Bosnia will disappear sooner or later. Dividing it between Serbs and Croats and if possible(though it's an interesting precedent) a "Muslim" state is much better. Considering Bosnia is an open wound for Serbian interests and while Serbia is our direct neigbour, Bosnia isn't, our meddling there is not productive for our interests either.

Also, the "backyard" sounds too much like the parrots we have as heads of Defense Ministry so other parrots ideas (like the Tourism Ministry's) can hardly be opposed. All are the same - useless.

[Victor]

Take note that Sidex and most of the giant mammoths of your beloved Ceusescu era generated huge losses to the economy. Something had to be done. Selling them is one sollution. But this too off topic.

As regarding our implication in the Balkans, I have no more comments. If you believe that organized crime, violence, refugee generating areas like Bosnia or Kossovo should be just left alone, even though they are in our back yard, that is your right.

[inahurry]

What's the matter, Victor? Did you have a bad day ? (Taking the portrait of his "beloved" Ceausescu from under the pillow, kissing it with adoration and whispering a wish to send poor Victor peace of mind ). See, it helps, you may try with your beloved Mihai "of Romania"'s photo.

I said nothing about Kossovo but I am not so itchy at being quoted preciselly.

Kossovo in many respects is a worse case than Bosnia. It is not our backyard and for that matter neither NATO's. It's just a disgusting example of how history was made. The Rakacz "massacre" and all. I bet 9 Americans in 10 have no idea or completely forgot what that "massacre" was. Or that "600,000" Albanians were supposedly refugees from Kossovo before the NATO bombings and so on. Lie after lie. No, grotesque lie after grotesque lie. I don't blame them. I, myself, believed for a few days the "60,000" killed at Timisoara. I, myself, heard, on Free Europe, how the army "machine gunned" the demonstrators from helicopters and so on. Why wouldn't they believe the "concentrational camps" - too bad some "honest" reporters had to enter a chicken cage to shoot the non-existant fences of the camp.

Relax, you're just dead wrong, no need to get bad blood.

[inahurry]

I suppose American citizens would sit calmly and watch how General Electric, General Motors, Boeing, Intel... wait, why bother to mention each and everyone.... if ALL the major providers of jobs and national wealth would be held by foreigners. I can imagine the rush of volunteers to an army meant to defend thier foreign controlled country.

[Geto-Dacul]

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

Imagine how many more suicides there would have been if the time they had to serve was longer.

The problem here is the change of mentality, clearly imposed by foreign interests. In the past, military service had been 2 years in the ground forces (and that until the 60's), and suicide or desertion was not a common phenomenon. We are facing here a pure social problem.

QUOTE

Teenagers today are less conscious of many things! This is why a volunteer force would be a good thing for us.

As facing a social problem, there's a serious need of education and awarness, that the State no longer provides. This is what you can call "mastered anarchy".

QUOTE

History also showed us that a conscript army was incapable of defending Romania on some occasions. It depends on the circumstances.

I see as absurd the thing that the normal people would watch on TV as the "volunteer force" defends their country. That's why it isn't normal to abolish military term. It's like we abolished history & geography class for a future engineer, taking in consideration that in his future job, there will be no such thing! :wink: :shock:

[Victor]

QUOTE

What's the matter, Victor? Did you have a bad day ? (Taking the portrait of his \"beloved\" Ceausescu from under the pillow, kissing it with adoration and whispering a wish to send poor Victor peace of mind ). See, it helps, you may try with your beloved Mihai \"of Romania\"'s photo.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I do not have a photo of the king.

QUOTE

I said nothing about Kossovo but I am not so itchy at being quoted preciselly.

No, I said it in a previous post. You then only addressed Bosnia, but since those areas have similar problems, I put them together.

QUOTE

Kossovo in many respects is a worse case than Bosnia. It is not our backyard and for that matter neither NATO's. It's just a disgusting example of how history was made.

It is in our region and has generated a lot of problems. Why should it not be our problem too?

QUOTE

Relax, you're just dead wrong, no need to get bad blood.

I could say the same thing about you. :wink:

QUOTE

suppose American citizens would sit calmly and watch how General Electric, General Motors, Boeing, Intel... wait, why bother to mention each and everyone.... if ALL the major providers of jobs and national wealth would be held by foreigners. I can imagine the rush of volunteers to an army meant to defend thier foreign controlled country.

Well, the difference is General Electric, Intel etc are profitable. I simply cannot see how many of these Communist era enterprises, many of which have outdated equipment could compete with huge corporations. They need to be inside big corporations (which have the financial power to restructure them and to find new markets) in order to function positively. We would still be dependent on "foreigners" even if we would have kept them, because we would need money to keep the economy afloat and we do not control the World Bank or the IMF.

QUOTE

I see as absurd the thing that the normal people would watch on TV as the \"volunteer force\" defends their country

NATO membership will most likely deter any future aggression on Romania by a foreign military force.

[tempesta]

I didn't said that a poor country with no immediate enemies should not have an army.
I just tried to point that is better to train well a small force than to train verry bad the entire male population.
And when talking about costs, salary is not the major cost of a soldier. Equipement, practice ammo and so on are much more important. Also we must consider the fact that a citizen under arms doesn't pay taxes to the state, he is supported by the state; I belive that a citizen who works and pays taxes contributes more to the well-being of the country than a conscript who sits and waits to return home(because bullets are to expensive to be wasted for practice).
Unfortunately, the costs of mantaining a large and well-trained army are to much for present Romanian budget. And the posibilty of obtaininig money by selling the products of defense industry sounds nice, but is hampered by politics: Romania's big allies dont like that .

[C-2]

Cammon' guys!
Make peace!
get a job!