[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Either you need draftees, or you don'T. If you need them, funding is not tzhe problem, for they will see work enough anyway. If you do not need them, additional funding just leads to "Beschäftigungstherapie" (=ergotherapy?) where they do things that are not needed to get done.

I think in my unit the professionals would have loved to do more with the recruits but there was always the "too expensive" argument.

From all feedback I ever got from people who were in the milutary, not that batallion in the arzicle is the exception from the rule, but Schroeder's experience maybe is.

This might be the case. I've been in one of the very few units were recruits still got kicked in the rear (not literally) if they didn't perform well. Something I've never heard of in any other unit (my brother in law was with the "Heeresflieger" (I believe they are called army aviators in English) and his basic training was a kindergarten compared to ours.)
The unit I was in doesn't even exist anymore (not that I'm too unhappy about that).

How many years is it that you were there? If it is just 4 or 6 years, that already could make a difference again.

8 years.

And next question to be asked: what military competences could be trained in just 6 months (some even want 4 months now...)?

One exact answer would be: Nothing!
That's why I'm strongly against reducing the time to six months as it will really render the draft completely useless (but I think that's the plan anyway and then they can say: "See, told ya so. Completely useless , now let's abolish the whole thing altogether."

Zeitsoldaten (=professionals) tend to look down on draftees anyway, and not taking them too serious. I know two pros of medium and higher ranks personally since many years now, who both have been to the Afghanistan field, who say that they do not know any professional wanting to go into combat mission, (Heer or Marine) with a troops of draftees serving for 6 months, nor that they would want to do that themselves.

Of course not. Draftees are needed to have reserves in case of a war. Ask your friends whether they would rather face an enemy with draftees and therefore in equal numbers, or all alone.

This draft system must go, even more since it is very injust now, because only a small faction of every year's young men get drafted anyway. and for a modern mission-oriented intervention army that the Bundeswehr is de facto being turned into, you do not want and do not need draftees, but professionals with some more training and experience.

It is unjust for sure and definitely needs to be worked over. Can you look into the future? I can't. If you abolish the draft you will likely never be able to reinstall it. What will be in 20 years? Will Iran be peaceful, will Turkey still be an ally? Will the Balkan stay stable? Will Belarus and Ukraine stay stable? Could we handle any threat of those with only a handful of professional soldiers without the means to increase the size of the army quickly or compensate possible losses?

6 months, or maybe even 4, simply is a foul compromise doing nothing good for anybody.

Agreed.

Some days ago, a paper got leaked with inernal plannings by the Bundeswehr for the future size of the german forces. The scenario with the smallest number of personell saw cuts in the navy to less than 9000 (all in all!), combat troops not more than 29,000, and a massive reduction from the current overall personell (all weapons branches, combat as well as supply units) level of 250,000 to something below 150,000. Up to 4 billion should be saved that way.

Read my manager comment in my previous post.