your thoughts please

[Elena]

Hi!

I've posted this on another forum, but the participants ran away with it onto purely American issue, while I am interested to hear some opinions about pros and cons of conscription and professional army in general. So, if you please.

PS
I must say that it's not my article, but it represents a very common view on a problem among Russians.

As you know, Russia is reforming its military and Russians are discussing not only the ways but also the principles along which such reform should be carried out.

What are your thoughts on this particular point of view?

"Liberals favourite thesis: "Let those who want serve ". The authors of the thesis can not (or will not) understand that those who want to serve, already do so ... But most of the rank and file that join the army formed exclusively through contract recruiting, join it for the money and benefits.

It would be better to remember this thesis: "One can kill for money, but one can’t die for money." There are many professions that imply a higher probability of death (the miners, pilots, rescue workers, fire-fighters, etc.), but only the military profession implies a duty to die. This is fundamental difference between the military profession and other high-risk professions. And there are no riches for which one would be prepared to die, after all one can’t take money to the grave. One would be prepared to die only for an idea: religious faith, Tsar, Fatherland, communism, democracy, and nation. One can die in the name of revenge (another idea), but not for money.

For money you can go to serve in the prestigious, highly paid, non-belligerent army; or in an army engaged in a war with minimal losses which is almost impossible despite technological progress. But if you must die - the motivation is changing fundamentally.

Very good example is the U.S. war against Iraq, which began in 2003. If at the beginning of the campaign American losses were low, successes unquestionable and the soldiers believed that the Iraqis see them as liberators (they fought for the idea of democracy and freedom), the motivation among soldiers was high enough. When the loss increased, and it became clear that a large part of Iraqis don’t feel gratitude towards the American troops the motivation for U.S. soldiers disappeared. It disappeared because the idea was lost, leaving only money, which people do not die. And this is in the United States, where the rank and file get really good money and significant benefits, where they have excellent conditions of service, where the command is seriously concerned about minimizing losses, and where the propaganda machine is constantly telling the military that they are not mercenaries, but the pride of the nation, patriots and defenders of freedom and democracy (Americans do understand how much the Army needs the idea). However, the problem of new recruits already became significant in the second year of the war and the quality of newly recruited fell catastrophically.

In a real war against a powerful enemy the mercenary army is not capable of defending a country. This was demonstrated during the war in Kuwait, whose army offered no resistance to aggression by Iraq in August 1990. Kuwait was awash with oil money and the salaries of soldiers were no problem, they were excellent as was combat training, and military equipment... But at the start of the Iraqi aggression the army of Kuwait simply "evaporated". "Well-paid and well-trained professionals" have not shown the slightest desire to die, that was not what they joined the army for. If anything, civilians showed more resistance to the aggressors.

......
Increased prosperity and the erosion of values led to the fact that in most Western countries conscription becomes impossible in principle (society rejects it). .....Motivation of armed forces is such that maintaining anything like a serious war becomes impossible; people simply don’t join the army. ...

Under these circumstances then salvation comes from another category of people for whom the war is indeed a calling. This category is small in number and very specific. It is an ideological mercenaries (soldiers of fortune "," wild geese ", etc.). They like extreme risk. They are so interesting in killing for money, that they are ready to even die for it. By their mentality these people differ little from criminals, they simply legalize their murderous inclinations.

Contingent of ideological mercenaries - is a real professional army. It consists of professional killers. These armies existed throughout the history of mankind, but in the last 300-400 years, with the advent of state monopoly on armed violence, it became much marginalized, yet did not disappear, because the service of ideological mercenaries has always been in demand.

Now, when in many Western countries army become purely symbolic, the use of mercenary thugs became a very attractive idea. Moreover, the loss of state monopoly on violence is happening on the other side. Guerrilla and terrorist groups are now more likely to become the subject of fighting than normal regular army."

 

[Ahlevah]

What are your thoughts on this particular point of view?

An organized national army is a creation and extension of civil government. What is the primary duty of civil government? Since I was educated in Enlightenment-era political philosophy, I believe it is to enhance and preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the natural rights of man. One of those rights is to have control of your person, your self. If you are being asked to pick up a gun and die for something, then you should have a voice in it. If you are a slave to a state, even if you love it and would die for it, then you are not free. It is even worse if the people who run the state do it simply to enrich themselves.

If a nation provides the benefit of freedom to all of the people, then all of them should feel a sense of duty to help or defend it in any manner they can. They should be paid enough money so they can sustain themselves and provide a decent standard of living for their families while they're in the military, but I do not think that money should be the primary factor that motivates people to join. If enough of them do not want to defend the nation of their own free will, then maybe that nation is not worth defending. Freedom is not free.

 

[rathi]

You completely misunderstand military effectiveness.

Kuwait failed to stop the Iraqi's because they utterly failed to anticipate the conflict and were caught napping. They had roughly two brigades of armor fighting close to 100,000 soldiers. It is irrelevant whether they were conscripts or volunteers or anything, they were facing overwhelming forces while off balance.

If you think that the American army is weak because it uses volunteers, you are a fool. Recruiting is low because Iraq is yet another stupid counter-insurgency that negates most of the power of our forces. Quality may be down, but it still surpasses that of most other nations.


Your thesis that using violent mercenaries works is simply untrue. The Russians have used such mercenaries in Chechnya, and they have had little more success despite incredibly brutal tactics.

Well trained, well led, well organized and well equipped soldiers in quantity win wars, others factors are secondary.

 

[Elena]

You completely misunderstand military effectiveness.

Kuwait failed to stop the Iraqi's because they utterly failed to anticipate the conflict and were caught napping. They had roughly two brigades of armor fighting close to 100,000 soldiers. It is irrelevant whether they were conscripts or volunteers or anything, they were facing overwhelming forces while off balance.

If you think that the American army is weak because it uses volunteers, you are a fool. Recruiting is low because Iraq is yet another stupid counter-insurgency that negates most of the power of our forces. Quality may be down, but it still surpasses that of most other nations.


Your thesis that using violent mercenaries works is simply untrue. The Russians have used such mercenaries in Chechnya, and they have had little more success despite incredibly brutal tactics.

Well trained, well led, well organized and well equipped soldiers in quantity win wars, others factors are secondary.

Allow me to remind you that an article I posted is not mine. Also,
I am not quite sure what you mean by "Russians have used such mercenaries in Chechnya" since Russian army is almost entirely a conscripted army as far as I know...

Now, to the point.

Are you suggesting a conscript military where all the members are paid adequate salary for the period they are expected to serve? Sort of professional army of humongous proportions?

 

[other]

"Liberals favourite thesis: "Let those who want serve ". The authors of the thesis can not (or will not) understand that those who want to serve, already do so ... But most of the rank and file that join the army formed exclusively through contract recruiting, join it for the money and benefits.

I disagree. This is naive. In America, being in the military is not a high paying job and the benefits are not especially great relative to many other options out there.

It would be better to remember this thesis: "One can kill for money, but one can’t die for money." There are many professions that imply a higher probability of death (the miners, pilots, rescue workers, fire-fighters, etc.), but only the military profession implies a duty to die. This is fundamental difference between the military profession and other high-risk professions. And there are no riches for which one would be prepared to die, after all one can’t take money to the grave. One would be prepared to die only for an idea: religious faith, Tsar, Fatherland, communism, democracy, and nation. One can die in the name of revenge (another idea), but not for money.

I do not believe it implies a "duty to die." It implies a duty to follow lawful orders, there's a difference.

For money you can go to serve in the prestigious, highly paid, non-belligerent army; or in an army engaged in a war with minimal losses which is almost impossible despite technological progress. But if you must die - the motivation is changing fundamentally.

obviously. But only martyrs, fanatics, suicide bombers, kamakaze pilots or other extremists go into war knowing they "must die."

Very good example is the U.S. war against Iraq, which began in 2003. If at the beginning of the campaign American losses were low, successes unquestionable and the soldiers believed that the Iraqis see them as liberators (they fought for the idea of democracy and freedom), the motivation among soldiers was high enough. When the loss increased, and it became clear that a large part of Iraqis don’t feel gratitude towards the American troops the motivation for U.S. soldiers disappeared. It disappeared because the idea was lost, leaving only money, which people do not die.

The motivation did not "disappear." Recruitment declined, yes, because naturally there are some who are unwilling to take on added personal risk, but the motivation by no means "disappeared." Many, many still joined despite the increased risk and without a significant increase in pay or benefits and our military remained plenty capable.

And this is in the United States, where the rank and file get really good money and significant benefits, where they have excellent conditions of service, where the command is seriously concerned about minimizing losses, and where the propaganda machine is constantly telling the military that they are not mercenaries, but the pride of the nation, patriots and defenders of freedom and democracy (Americans do understand how much the Army needs the idea).

Again, niether the money, the benefits, nor the conditions are "really good" relative to most other jobs in America.

And what command that expects to win isn't seriously concerned with minimzing losses? that's a given in any professional military.

and about the rest... I would ask: what nation does not maintain a military force? The maintenence of a military is a responsibilty of government. To say, without qualification, that when citizens serve in that force, they are either mercenaries or brainwashed by a "propaganda machine" is nothing but mindless propaganda itself.

However, the problem of new recruits already became significant in the second year of the war and the quality of newly recruited fell catastrophically.

No it didn't. Not at all... and unlike the propagandist who wrote this piece I am speaking from first hand experience.

In a real war against a powerful enemy the mercenary army is not capable of defending a country. This was demonstrated during the war in Kuwait, whose army offered no resistance to aggression by Iraq in August 1990. Kuwait was awash with oil money and the salaries of soldiers were no problem, they were excellent as was combat training, and military equipment... But at the start of the Iraqi aggression the army of Kuwait simply "evaporated". "Well-paid and well-trained professionals" have not shown the slightest desire to die, that was not what they joined the army for. If anything, civilians showed more resistance to the aggressors.

this is a distortion.

......

Increased prosperity and the erosion of values led to the fact that in most Western countries conscription becomes impossible in principle (society rejects it). .....Motivation of armed forces is such that maintaining anything like a serious war becomes impossible; people simply don’t join the army. ...

It is not the armed forces which have trouble maintaining wars, it is certain portions of the civilian population that lose the stomach for it.

Under these circumstances then salvation comes from another category of people for whom the war is indeed a calling. This category is small in number and very specific. It is an ideological mercenaries (soldiers of fortune "," wild geese ", etc.). They like extreme risk. They are so interesting in killing for money, that they are ready to even die for it. By their mentality these people differ little from criminals, they simply legalize their murderous inclinations.

Nope. The asserted circumstances in which this argument is built upon are false in the first place, and the added assertions are complete crap as well.

Contingent of ideological mercenaries - is a real professional army. It consists of professional killers. These armies existed throughout the history of mankind, but in the last 300-400 years, with the advent of state monopoly on armed violence, it became much marginalized, yet did not disappear, because the service of ideological mercenaries has always been in demand.

Now, when in many Western countries army become purely symbolic, the use of mercenary thugs became a very attractive idea.

and what western army would this be referring to?

Moreover, the loss of state monopoly on violence is happening on the other side. Guerrilla and terrorist groups are now more likely to become the subject of fighting than normal regular army."

what does this have to do with the composition of western armies? Guerrillas and terrorists have always been a part of warfare.
_________________________________________

That's my take on the article. I think it's designed to promote an agenda because it is mostly built upon false assumptions and in no way actually reflects reality.

My personal take on professional conscripted armies?

They are the most effective armies known to man at the present time, as long as they retain the backing of their respective civilian populations.

 

[presluc]

It is my beleif that any person that loves their country, beleives in their country will die for their country.

More so in defending their country and what it stands for.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, an old enemy of America one of the admirals that led that attack was quoted as saying "I FEAR WE HAVE AWOKEN A SLEEPING GIANT".

 

[Elena]

My personal take on professional conscripted armies?

They are the most effective armies known to man at the present time, as long as they retain the backing of their respective civilian populations.

So, professional, conscripted or a mixture of both?

I do not know much about military matters, but from what I understand, a professional army is very effective to fight another regular army. For example, the US military has beaten a regular army in Iraq and Afghanistan with minimal loses thanks to hi-tech and superior training; but now that it is fighting a partisan war where it can not use hi-tech to the full extent, it is losing. Why? Is it because the US army is not DEFENDING what is theirs, while the locals are defending their land and their way of life and therefore are more prepared to die for what they are defending; or are there other reasons for it?

 

[presluc]

So, professional, conscripted or a mixture of both?

I do not know much about military matters, but from what I understand, a professional army is very effective to fight another regular army. For example, the US military has beaten a regular army in Iraq and Afghanistan with minimal loses thanks to hi-tech and superior training; but now that it is fighting a partisan war where it can not use hi-tech to the full extent, it is losing. Why? Is it because the US army is not DEFENDING what is theirs, while the locals are defending their land and their way of life and therefore are more prepared to die for what they are defending; or are there other reasons for it?

The Iraq war should never have happened in my opinion.
Iraq is not America's property it shoud belong to the people of Iraq.

America is supposed to be helping Iraqi people become free to choose what kind of government they want unfortunatly terrorist and other factions only want Iraqi people to have what they want them to have
So the American soldier winds up fighting terrorist and other factions plus some Iraqis the language becomes a problem, the fitting in becomes a problem,then there's the trust issue.

 

[Scorpion89]

It is my beleif that any person that loves their country, beleives in their country will die for their country.

More so in defending their country and what it stands for.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, an old enemy of America one of the admirals that led that attack was quoted as saying "I FEAR WE HAVE AWOKEN A SLEEPING GIANT".

Actually Adm.Yamato never made such a statement.

 

[Scorpion89]

Hmmm the last time I looked and when I was there in 1998 the Kuwait Army and over all Military was far from being made up of any Mercs. as a amtter of fact they were are very proud Military that like allot of us got caught naping when Iraq invade the Country.

Do you actually have proof and links showing that the Kuwait Military was made up of Mercs.

 

[other]

So, professional, conscripted or a mixture of both?

Depends on what you mean by conscripted. I imagine conscripts could be either forced into service or they could volunteer. Voluntary service is better in my opinion.

So to clarify, a volunteer force of professionals.

I do not know much about military matters, but from what I understand, a professional army is very effective to fight another regular army. For example, the US military has beaten a regular army in Iraq and Afghanistan with minimal loses thanks to hi-tech and superior training;

Special forces, recon elements, and precision airstrike capability are all part of professional forces, and are also very effective at fighting enemy partisan elements. As are normal ground companies if the intel is reliable and the troops have access to close air support. In a stand-up fight, professionals win, but the terrorists we're after now don't usually fight (especially not the leaders)-- they:

-coerce civilians into doing their legwork
--pop off mortars and run
--hide in crowds, fire from crowds
--hide in mosques, fire from mosques
--ambush and flee
--Plant Ieds
--exploit women, children, mentally handicapped individuals, and other innocents for military ends
--wage propaganda campaigns aimed at destroying the civilian populace's (at home) will to fight.

and more. Professional military forces that abide by rules of engagement are severly limited in their capability to fight against such an enemy, but they can adapt to effectively face the threat.

but now that it is fighting a partisan war where it can not use hi-tech to the full extent, it is losing. Why? Is it because the US army is not DEFENDING what is theirs, while the locals are defending their land and their way of life and therefore are more prepared to die for what they are defending; or are there other reasons for it?

It technically isn't losing in strictly military sense. It's not like we are militarily unable to continue fighting or we are being run out of our bases. Certain portions of the populace at home have decided to discontinue fighting, not the military itself-- it is a political matter. Military effectiveness is often directly proportional to political support at home.

Furthermore, to say that "the locals are defending their land and their way of life and therefore are more prepared to die," is not accurate when speaking of all those who are fighting americans... we have stong support from the locals in many areas, and many we are fighting are not locals. Chechans, Iranians, Jordanians, Syrians, Arabians, and many other foreign partisan insurgents fought (and are fighting) in Iraq. We're not fighting any particular country. And besides, the locals in the regions are not all bystanders, many choose sides for their own benefit at the expense of other locals, and it has been this way for centuries. In other words, it's very complex.

 

[presluc]

Actually Adm.Yamato never made such a statement.

I never said Yamato did.

However the statement was made.

 

[presluc]

Depends on what you mean by conscripted. I imagine conscripts could be either forced into service or they could volunteer. Voluntary service is better in my opinion.

So to clarify, a volunteer force of professionals.




Special forces, recon elements, and precision airstrike capability are all part of professional forces, and are also very effective at fighting enemy partisan elements. As are normal ground companies if the intel is reliable and the troops have access to close air support. In a stand-up fight, professionals win, but the terrorists we're after now don't usually fight (especially not the leaders)-- they:

-coerce civilians into doing their legwork
--pop off mortars and run
--hide in crowds, fire from crowds
--hide in mosques, fire from mosques
--ambush and flee
--Plant Ieds
--exploit women, children, mentally handicapped individuals, and other innocents for military ends
--wage propaganda campaigns aimed at destroying the civilian populace's (at home) will to fight.

and more. Professional military forces that abide by rules of engagement are severly limited in their capability to fight against such an enemy, but they can adapt to effectively face the threat.



It technically isn't losing in strictly military sense. It's not like we are militarily unable to continue fighting or we are being run out of our bases. Certain portions of the populace at home have decided to discontinue fighting, not the military itself-- it is a political matter. Military effectiveness is often directly proportional to political support at home.

Furthermore, to say that "the locals are defending their land and their way of life and therefore are more prepared to die," is not accurate when speaking of all those who are fighting americans... we have stong support from the locals in many areas, and many we are fighting are not locals. Chechans, Iranians, Jordanians, Syrians, Arabians, and many other foreign partisan insurgents fought (and are fighting) in Iraq. We're not fighting any particular country. And besides, the locals in the regions are not all bystanders, many choose sides for their own benefit at the expense of other locals, and it has been this way for centuries. In other words, it's very complex.

One other factor Professinal military forces are not born they are made through training very often from scratch.
Especially during the draft.

 

[Elena]

The Iraq war should never have happened in my opinion.
Iraq is not America's property it shoud belong to the people of Iraq.

America is supposed to be helping Iraqi people become free to choose what kind of government they want unfortunatly terrorist and other factions only want Iraqi people to have what they want them to have
So the American soldier winds up fighting terrorist and other factions plus some Iraqis the language becomes a problem, the fitting in becomes a problem,then there's the trust issue.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter... The question was Why the US professional military that won against a regular army is losing the war? Is it to do with the fact people in US military no longer believe in "we are helping Iraqi people become free to choose what kind of government they want"? Is it to do with the fact people in US military are realising that they are fighting for the interests of the few oil/gas/construction companies and not for the interests of the general American population? Or do the US servisemen still believe they are fighting in order to "help Iraqi people become free to choose what kind of government they want", in which case why the best professional military is losing the war after it already destroyed a regular army?

Please, don't take my words as a dig, it's genuine interest.

 

[presluc]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter... The question was Why the US professional military that won against a regular army is losing the war? Is it to do with the fact people in US military no longer believe in "we are helping Iraqi people become free to choose what kind of government they want"? Is it to do with the fact people in US military are realising that they are fighting for the interests of the few oil/gas/construction companies and not for the interests of the general American population? Or do the US servisemen still believe they are fighting in order to "help Iraqi people become free to choose what kind of government they want", in which case why the best professional military is losing the war after it already destroyed a regular army?

Please, don't take my words as a dig, it's genuine interest.

Well since the no WMDS scandal, and since President Bushes statement that basicly it was caused by "BAD INTELLIGENCE" the American people support for the Iraq war has dropped like a stone in a river.
One of the main forces needed to have a victory in a war is it's support from the American people at home.

I heard a phrase the other day.
Question; Do you support the war in Iraq
Answer; I support the troops fighting that war

 

[Elena]

Depends on what you mean by conscripted. I imagine conscripts could be either forced into service or they could volunteer. Voluntary service is better in my opinion.

So to clarify, a volunteer force of professionals.

By "conscripted" I mean you reach certain age and unless you have medical issues you must serve for two to three years.

OK, I understand that it is difficult to fight an "invisible" enemy...

Another example: recent Geargian war.

Well trained by US instructors, armed by US and Israel, professional Georgian army went against S. Ossetia and initially the Georgians made a good "progress", but faced with a prospect to fight a conscripted Russian army the Georgian army ran leaving their weapons and equipment. Neither army fought for what they considered "theirs", yet a professional army was not prepared to die in a fight, while a conscriped army had more determination to win at a higher cost... Do I make the wrong assumptions?

 

[other]

By "conscripted" I mean you reach certain age and unless you have medical issues you must serve for two to three years.

OK, I understand that it is difficult to fight an "invisible" enemy...

Another example: recent Geargian war.

Well trained by US instructors, armed by US and Israel, professional Georgian army went against S. Ossetia and initially the Georgians made a good "progress", but faced with a prospect to fight a conscripted Russian army the Georgian army ran leaving their weapons and equipment. Neither army fought for what they considered "theirs", yet a professional army was not prepared to die in a fight, while a conscriped army had more determination to win at a higher cost... Do I make the wrong assumptions?

I'm not all that familiar with that particular conflict, but weren't both sides composed of conscripted troops under professional commanders? And what was the actual situation (ie. number of troops on both sides, terrain, weapons, objectives, etc)?

A large number of factor would have contributed to the outcome.

 

[Scorpion89]

.

Well trained by US instructors, armed by US and Israel, professional Georgian army went against S. Ossetia and initially the Georgians made a good "progress", but faced with a prospect to fight a conscripted Russian army the Georgian army ran leaving their weapons and equipment. Neither army fought for what they considered "theirs", yet a professional army was not prepared to die in a fight, while a conscriped army had more determination to win at a higher cost... Do I make the wrong assumptions?

Well I can tell you have no idea what your talking about and since this is an area I have some expertise in I can tell you this the only training the US military every gave the Georgain Army was how they would work together on the battle field. As for the US and Israel providing arms I would like you to provide a link with the following items.

1) A link showing what type of Armour and Tanks the US and Israel provided
2) A link showing what type of Helicopters
3) A link showing what type of machine gun and light arms
4) A link showing what type of UAVs
5) A link showing what type of Military Issued Clothing
6) A link showing what typer of Intel items

As for what actually happen on the ground in Southern Ossetia not even close the Georgain Army actaully was winning but when the Russian decide to step in with the use of the Russian Airforce that turned the tide.

Trust me Elena this is an subject that I'm very knowledgeable on.

 

[Renignicat]

An organization committed to building the infrastructure of a hostile power, under direction of said power yet under employ of a homeland, will always be far more efficient and appropriate towards building lasting peace.

 

[Elena]

Well I can tell you have no idea what your talking about and since this is an area I have some expertise in I can tell you this the only training the US military every gave the Georgain Army was how they would work together on the battle field. As for the US and Israel providing arms I would like you to provide a link with the following items.

1) A link showing what type of Armour and Tanks the US and Israel provided
2) A link showing what type of Helicopters
3) A link showing what type of machine gun and light arms
4) A link showing what type of UAVs
5) A link showing what type of Military Issued Clothing
6) A link showing what typer of Intel items

As for what actually happen on the ground in Southern Ossetia not even close the Georgain Army actaully was winning but when the Russian decide to step in with the use of the Russian Airforce that turned the tide.

Trust me Elena this is an subject that I'm very knowledgeable on.

I will get you some information tomorrow.
Good night.

 

[rathi]

The problem is you have an unfounded assumption that conscript vs volunteer actually is important, when it just isn't. The Georgians were screwed against the Russians because of the vast size and material superiority of their military. The Kuwait military was surprised and outnumbered 6 to 1. The U.S. in Iraq is facing a counterinsurgency which denies any kind of decisive battle. All the factors I mentioned are more important than how the soldier ended up in the army.

 

[Scorpion89]

I will get you some information tomorrow.
Good night.

Well typical you get called out on something and run off :2wave:

Hey just FYI for you I might know a tad more on this subject then you since I've spent the last 23 Years working at the DoD and have spent time in former Soviet Sats. oh and yes I have been to Georgia so you better be able to give me exact type and I ask for.

Because I will break down for you what the Georgian Army has and where it came from if you like. :2wave:

 

[MyOwnDrum]

I think your post is interesting and thought provoking.

 

[Elena]

Well typical you get called out on something and run off :2wave:

Hey just FYI for you I might know a tad more on this subject then you since I've spent the last 23 Years working at the DoD and have spent time in former Soviet Sats. oh and yes I have been to Georgia so you better be able to give me exact type and I ask for.

Because I will break down for you what the Georgian Army has and where it came from if you like. :2wave:

One has to sleep sometimes you know...

I am glad that you have a first hand experience of training (?) Georgian army, and yes, I would like you to share with me your knowledge.

Information I have states that at the start of the war there were 1000 military instructors of the United States in Georgia; then there is this What Israel Lost in the Georgia War - TIME

And what was that Russians found after the Georgian army ran, and the US were eager to return?

 

[Elena]

The problem is you have an unfounded assumption that conscript vs volunteer actually is important, .

Well, that's what most in Russia think; they are talking not only about higher professionalism, but put emphasis on a morale and what influences it. And lots of people are of the opinion that while professionalism is undoubtedly higher in a contract/professional/volunteer army, the morale and determination is higher in a conscript army (of course, they think of a war against an agressor).