Military Question

[fedorable1]

Hey, everyone.

I have a question regarding something in my latest screenplay.

In it, there is a Major General in the Air Force who recruits somebody "on the spot" while under siege. It's similar to the old Western joke of "Congratulations, you've just been deputized. Good luck."

What I want to know is, would such a high-ranking official have the power to recuit someone directly, and therefore provide them with munitions until reinforcements arrived - or would it still require the proper channels and whatnot?

[dpaterso]

I just can't imagine such a scenario. Which probably means I wouldn't believe it. Different if there were no official recruitment -- if the "welcome" was more along the lines of, "Congratulations, you've just become an honorary member of the U.S. Air Force. Take this gun and shoot them."

-Derek
Derek's Web Page - stories, screenplays, novels, insanity. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/DPaterson57/scripts.htm)

[Enigma]

Hey, everyone.

I have a question regarding something in my latest screenplay.

In it, there is a Major General in the Air Force who recruits somebody "on the spot" while under siege. (WHAT?) It's similar to the old Western joke of "Congratulations, you've just been deputized. Good luck."

What I want to know is, would such a high-ranking official have the power to recuit (RECRUIT MEANS YOU ASK, NICELY. FLAG OFFICERS DON'T ASK; THEY ORDER) someone directly, and therefore provide them with munitions (LIKE A TOMCAT?) until reinforcements arrived - or would it still require the proper channels and whatnot?

A true story: I was once in a non-military, military type organization (don't ask) where we were all in the reserve, but not on active duty. e.g. - we were civilians. It happened in Florida, at Tindell AFB during a rather difficult period of history.

There was a little problem with the 101st Airborne Division's G-2 unit - they all came down with the mumps! Anyway, this three-star walked in unannounced, looked us over and declared, "You men will do," and ordered us to get in uniform (and get haircuts, and sober up, and get rid of the girls).

The boss, a reserve major, told him, "But, sir, my men aren't on active duty and, besides, none of us are jump qualified."

By golly, in one hour we were! And the star sent the MPs over to give us the good news. On my military record I'm jump qualified, but I've never, drunk or sober, to my knowledge, stepped out of an airplane when it was in the air.

Now, do you really want to ask if a flag officer can do anything he wants?

[Joe Calabrese]

In times of war a two star (USAF Major general) would have the authority to reinstate a retired soldier to active duty. Sure, paperwork would be needed but more a formality, unless the general is way off base for doing so.

As for drafting on the spot civilians, tough call.

Unless there is an active draft system in place I doubt it would fly, but if you can present it as a necessity (no other choice under the circumstances), it would make for good drama and sometimes that's more important that the truth.

[Enigma]

In times of war a two star (USAF Major general) would have the authority to reinstate a retired soldier to active duty. TRUE. Sure, paperwork would be needed but more a formality, unless the general is way off base for doing so. FLAG OFFICERS ARE NEVER OFF BASE. THAT'S WHAT 2ND LIEUTENANTS ARE FOR.

As for drafting on the spot civilians, tough call. ACTUALLY, JOE, THEY CAN, AND HAVE DONE IT. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SWEAR - EITHER THAT YOU'LL GO OUT AND ON REQUEST, SHOOT PEOPLE - OR AT THE MPs IN BACK OF YOU HOLDING GUNS! EITHER WAY, YOU'RE INSTANTLY IN THE ARMY. THE DRAFT IS NO LONGER BUT THERE'S A LAW STILL ON THE BOOKS THAT SAYS ANY MALE EIGHTEEN OR OLDER, OWES SIX YEARS (TOTAL) OF MILITARY SERVICE, AND MORE, IF IT'S FOR THE GOOD OF THE SERVICE.

Unless there is an active draft system in place I doubt it would fly, but if you can present it as a necessity (no other choice under the circumstances), it would make for good drama and sometimes that's more important that the truth.

The message says this is too short. So....

[fedorable1]

In times of war a two star (USAF Major general) would have the authority to reinstate a retired soldier to active duty. Sure, paperwork would be needed but more a formality, unless the general is way off base for doing so.

As for drafting on the spot civilians, tough call.

Unless there is an active draft system in place I doubt it would fly, but if you can present it as a necessity (no other choice under the circumstances), it would make for good drama and sometimes that's more important that the truth.

Thanks, that pretty much answers my question.

If higher-ranking officer (say, a USAF Lieutenant General) were opposed to said recruitment, would there be any repercussions or would the Lt. Gen just override the fact?

[GonnaBeFamous]

Sounds like a movie not a novel and it sounds like comedy potential, therefore I'd go for it.

[Boo_Radley]

To my knowledge, having served in the armed forces and been in combat:

Technically speaking, no. It doesn't matter how high-ranking a military official is, he does not have the authority to "deputize" a private citizen into the military. Be it against the person's will (which would be deemed unconstitutional) or if the person's all for it (there is still the swearing in, the qualification/ASVAB testing processes, the MEP tests, etc.), the only person who may be called into duty who is NOT already a soldier is a retired/ETS'ed soldier, and even then it's only allowable up to a certain age, and depending on how long they've been on inactive duty.

For example:

In the Army, which I was in, you are automatically enlisted for eight years. You will spend x amount of years on active duty. After those three years I ETS'ed (out-processed) and spent the remaining five years of my enlistment on inactive duty, which means I came home and went about life as usual as a civilian.

During those five years, however, I could have been called back in at any time. I'd have been given the military equivalent of "refreshment" training and rotated back into active duty until I was no longer needed, at which case I would have out-processed again and returned to inactive "civilian" life for the remainder of my inactive duty time. After that period of inactive duty was up, I still could have been (but was less likely to have been) called back into duty, unless I was 35 years old or older (Army enlistment's cut-off age for a new recruit). I'm pushing 34 right now and haven't been called back in, so I don't see it happening for me any time soon.

Now...if your script operates on a realistic basis, forget about a General recruiting a civilian directly into combat. It does not, and never will, work like that. However...I don't see a problem if you decided that your civilian character, of his own accord, volunteered to assist. But even then, he's still a private citizen and does not have the freedoms of combat (how's that for an oxymoron) that an enlisted soldier would. Forget what you've seen in the movies. He would not be made privy to any confidential information (the military's confidentiality clauses have three tiers; "confidential", "secret" and "top secret") and he would not be considered part of any team, squad, platoon, company, unit or division. He'd basically be the equivalent of a regular guy the police give permission to go on a ride-along.

But if you want to get absolutely downright technical, during a siege civilians are treated as POW's; which means, in conjunction with the Geneva Convention, the military's primary concern would be the safety and sequestering of private citizens and the minimalization of risk to their persons. Recruiting them on the spot and handing them over a weapon is an antithesis to this.

[GonnaBeFamous]

You know what I say. Make it a damn fantasy. Bend the rules. I like the premise. I say go for it. If you have a passionate idea about it, then it will show in your work.

[GonnaBeFamous]

I have an idea, have the president in the opening scene sign new legislation or the T.V on talking about how the military changed it's rules and the supreme court agreed or something like that. That will cover it then since you won't have to worry about it being a fantasy or not. :)

[rich]

Yeah, but.

A major general usually commands a division, a lieutenant general, usually a force consisting of a number of divisions. When either are in command in a combat situation they seldom consider how the rules lay out within their command. What they want to do is win. They'd deputize their mothers, rules or no rules, if they felt that it would gain them the upper hand. If a general did not have those leanings he/she should not be a general.

[Boo_Radley]

You've got it a bit backwards. A LT General is of lower rank than a Major General, and would have command of a single division; a Major General would have command of more. And, they DO indeed take the rules into consideration. Every soldier who swears in is sworn to abide by the Geneva Convention; it's more of a raison d'etre than actually fighting during combat. And if a General had the leanings to recruit civilians into combat and thus jeopardize their lives, he most definitely should NOT be a general.

For the purpose of answering the original question, Infracting upon a civilian's rights during a military exercise is considered a war crime, and they would be court martialed faster than you can say "A Few Good Men." And, the higher up the ladder you go, the less likely you would be to jeopardize your military career. Lieutenant General, Brigadeer General, Major General, General of the Army, what have you -- you get there by being a good soldier, not by bending the rules.

Not trying to argue or raise a fuss, by the way. The question was asked, "Would a high ranking military general have the power to recruit a civilian directly into combat?" The answer is no, he wouldn't -- and he wouldn't consider it. He'd be much more concerned with keeping that civilian out of harm's way, not putting him directly into it.

[AncientEagle]

You've got it a bit backwards. A LT General is of lower rank than a Major General, and would have command of a single division; a Major General would have command of more. .

I hate to disagree, Boo, because you are dead right on everything else. But a Lt General is indeed senior to a Major General. A LTG wears three stars, a MG two.

All of which is beside the point. The answer to the original question is NO, NEVER. Military officers have zero authority to act as "press gangs" and take civilians into the force. Could it happen in a comedy? Sure, but it would take such a huge suspension of disbelief as to be counterproductive. Also really irritating to military, former military, or retired military folks in your audience, who grow extremely tired of seeing military reality twisted totally out of shape, even in fiction.

I base my comments of 30+ years of Army service.

[fedorable1]

Thanks for the help, I appreciate it. However, I did read the following:

In the United States Army, Marine Corps and Air Force, a Major General ranks immediately below a Lieutenant General and above a Brigadier General.

Both the USAF and RAF websites concur. I think I got it right the first time.

[AncientEagle]

All the U.S. services, i.e., Army, Air Force, and USMC, are the same. Officer ranks, in ascending order: 2d Lt, 1st Lt, Captain, Major, Lieutenant Colonel, Colonel, Brigadier General, Major General, Lieutenant General, and General. Five star Generals of the Army have only been authorized during WWII and shortly thereafter. I believe Omar Bradley was the last one - he died a few years back.

Navy and Coast Guard are the same, but with different actual titles.

[Enigma]

Thanks for the help, I appreciate it. However, I did read the following:



Both the USAF and RAF websites concur. I think I got it right the first time.

Ancient Eagle and this old spook'll take a piece of that action. Right, AE?

It goes:
2nd Lieutenant - one gold bar (to aid in toilet training)
1st Lieutenant - one silver bar
Captain - railroad tracks
Major - oak leaf
Lieutenant Col. - silver oak leaf
Col. - eagle (a/k/a A bird colonel or full bird)
BG - one star
Major General - two stars
Lieutenant General - three stars
General - four stars
General of the Army - five stars

The Navy? Ah, hell. They got it all messed up. A captain is a colonel or he commands a boat, in which case he could be an ensign. A lieutenant is a captain. Something. I never did get them straight.

And there was one six star general, I believe Pershing, so he could be equal to all the French generals that signed the treaty, ending WW I. They later demoted him, back to a mere five stars.

[GonnaBeFamous]

OMG, I just said there is away around the military rules, Hell if the president pacts the court with goofballs in time of war that would make it funnier.


Besides, I already wrote the synopsis and sent it out to a couple producers I know, so you're arguing for nothing.





















J/K :D

[AncientEagle]

OMG, I just said there is away around the military rules, Hell if the president pacts the court with goofballs in time of war that would make it funnier.


Besides, I already wrote the synopsis and sent it out to a couple producers I know, so you're arguing for nothing.


















J/K :D

Arguing? You asked a question. Nobody said you had to listen to the answer. But when you close the sale, there are several of us who will expect a percentage for all the good advice we gave you. Just list us as script consultants.

[GonnaBeFamous]

Arguing? You asked a question. Nobody said you had to listen to the answer. But when you close the sale, there are several of us who will expect a percentage for all the good advice we gave you. Just list us as script consultants.

ROFLMAO, I'm not the thread starter.

[Joe Calabrese]

GBF.
Don't make trouble. I got my eye on you.

[Boo_Radley]

I hate to disagree, Boo, because you are dead right on everything else. But a Lt General is indeed senior to a Major General. A LTG wears three stars, a MG two.

Well, crap. It seems I got my p's and q's backwards. Thanks for the correction, Eagle.
:)

[nganok]

NO, as an ex-military officer, I can tell you that there are many cases where this might be necessary but, it is highly illegal. There are some cases where a officer can join a fighting force of a foriegn or domestic country e.g a revolutionary war era militia. The only entity that can force service upon civilians is a unified congress.

[sspunisher]

Simply put, if the civilian is against the "enlistment," then I don't care if he's a 2LT or Mr Bush himself, you can tell him to go stick it up his you know what. No one can be singled out. If it's a draft on the other hand, then it'd be different, but they'd still have to go through proper channels.

On a different note, I've known some civilian interrogaters who had full bird colonel insignia pinned on their cammies by a higher ranking officer in order to instill more fear in the terrorists or unknowing lower ranking officers/enlisted.

After all, if you see something shiny, you salute and reply with Sir. You don't ask for the officer's OQR to see if his documentation is all there.

[fedorable1]

Thanks everyone.

To verify, the person being "recruited" is volunteering for service, and willing to fight for the military. The issue is simply whether or not the volunteer would be allowed the usage of military weapons, vehicles, or equipment as per an "official" recruit - given that this is while under attack.

P.S. The volunteer is also a minor. Does that throw a whole new can of worms into the mix?

[Mac H.]

What I want to know is, would such a high-ranking official have the power to recuit someone directly, and therefore provide them with munitions until reinforcements arrived - or would it still require the proper channels and whatnot

As a viewer, I'd be more interested in whether it is BELIEVABLE that the official did it.

One method would be to have a nay-sayer who voices my concerns on the screen, and has the motivations explained. eg:
Underling: You can't do that. It's illegal. You'll get court martialed when we get back.
Official: That's what I'm hoping for. That we all live long enough for me to get court martialled...

(Ok, klunky. But you get the general gist)

Another way would be to tone it down, so our hero is never officially 'in', but he's just told to stay there with the weapons but he's NOT allowed to fire them. But as things get worse ..

Another option (in a comedy) would be to play it for laughs:
Underling: You can't just deputise him like that. You're just sending him out to be killed.
Official: Isn't there a loop hole in the rules somewhere ?
Underling: Of course not. It goes against the very foundation of democracy.
Official: Ok, you win. Looks like you'll be going on the suicide mission instead.
Underling: Oh look, I found a loophole.

On the other hand, you could make the hero a geek who got a military scholarship to college - and has just discovered the 'fine print' in the contract...

Mac

[Boo_Radley]

The issue is simply whether or not the volunteer would be allowed the usage of military weapons, vehicles, or equipment as per an "official" recruit - given that this is while under attack.

Nope. Under attack or not. The citizen's effort to volunteer would not be taken into consideration. No effort would be made to arm the civilian. Arming them would, by default, mark them as opponents to the enemy.

As literal as I can think to put it: if you're a civilian and you walk up to a soldier in a war zone, every effort will be immediately made to remove you from the scenario in the most expeditous and safety-minded way possible. It doesn't matter how much you want to pick up a rifle and help out (for one, whose to say you're not the enemy? Why take the chance and hand you a loaded and set-to-automatic M16?). It doesn't matter if you're filthy with patriotic fervor. It doesn't matter that you're a retired soldier with ten years combat experience. All that matters is that you're a civilian and that rules of war, rules of soldierly conduct and an oath to uphold the Constitution and Geneva Convention necessitate your immediate removal from the situation in the most safety-minded and expeditious manner possible. No real soldier would even entertain the notion of allowing a civilian into combat and risk them taking a bullet to the head or a mortar up the ***. It simply will not be allowed to enter the equation.


P.S. The volunteer is also a minor. Does that throw a whole new can of worms into the mix?

Nope. It applies to all ages...sexes...religions...nationalities...blood types...personalities...organ donor statuses...eye colors...I could go on.:D

[sspunisher]

Look at it this way.

If you want the boy officially recognized, meaning getting paid by rank, having benefits, completely legal, etc, then no.

If you want the boy to have power and authority, and he's willing to fight merely out of motivation, then can the higher official legally bestow rank upon him? No...but whose to say there is no extra set of cammies laying around, and some extra LtCol insignia laying around? Although if he's not of legal age, he wouldn't pass for anything more than Captain.

[scripter1]

but this is my take on it.

It's a life or death situation.
The group is making their last stand.
Only a few real soldiers are left and some civilians, including the kid in question.

The soldier in charge turns to the group and says 'Congrats, you've all just joined the army.'

It's more a line then an actual recruitment.

The subtext would be 'If you want to live then you better turn yourselves into warriors real soon.' And maybe only the kid rises to the task.
He's the only other "real" fighter left in the group.

Rank, laws, rules, Geneva, none of that matters.

When it comes down to basic survival and getting the hell out of there you want anyone who can point and pull to be armed.
(hmm, unless you know one of the group is a clutz.
"Okay, everyone, here is your weapon.
Uh, no, not you Sam. You carry the bandaids.")

The task of the writer is to cleverly and believably paint this group into such a dire situation and then just as smartly and, more importantly, dramatically write them back out of it.

It's not about military rank and protocol.
It's about creating drama through conflict.
You create far more conflict and drama by having your anti war/anti gun civilians suddenly faced with the choice of firing a weapon at the enemy or being slaughtered.
The choices that they will make creates the drama of the film.

Now, if there is time for protocol, time for the ranking officer to worry about all the rules then I would say it is a mute point. The situation has not been set up to warrant such a choice.
The threat level simply is not there.





I did however like Mac's thinking with the examples he put forth.
'Just found a loophole.'
He he he.


PS. A great big THANK YOU to all those who serve/served our Country.

[Enigma]

but this is my take on it.

It's a life or death situation.
The group is making their last stand.
Only a few real soldiers are left and some civilians, including the kid in question.

The soldier in charge turns to the group and says 'Congrats, you've all just joined the army.'

It's more a line then an actual recruitment.

The subtext would be 'If you want to live then you better turn yourselves into warriors real soon.' And maybe only the kid rises to the task.
He's the only other "real" fighter left in the group.

Rank, laws, rules, Geneva, none of that matters.

When it comes down to basic survival and getting the hell out of there you want anyone who can point and pull to be armed.
(hmm, unless you know one of the group is a clutz.
"Okay, everyone, here is your weapon.
Uh, no, not you Sam. You carry the bandaids.")

The task of the writer is to cleverly and believably paint this group into such a dire situation and then just as smartly and more importantly dramatically write them back out of it.

It's not about military rank and protocol.
It's about creating drama through conflict.
You create far more conflict and drama by having your anti war/anti gun civilians suddenly faced with the choice of firing a weapon at the enemy or being slaughtered.
The choices that they will make creates the drama of the film.

Now, if there is time for protocol, time for the ranking officer to worry about all the rules then I would say it is a mute point. The situation has not been set up to warrant such a choice.
The threat level simply is not there.





I did however like Mac's thinking with the examples he put forth.
'Just found a loophole.'
He he he.

I agree. Getting shot at isn't a whole hell of a lot of fun, and certainly not the moment to worry about rank, the law or the like. In the Army or not, give the kid a weapon. He'll figure out what to do with it.

[Boo_Radley]

I'm sorry to keep stressing this point, but it seems unless one has never served a tour of duty, military laws and codes are often thought to be just so much nonsense. But I really feel the necessity to continue stressing the point that if you're going for realism, it'll never happen. Never. Ever. And any reader with military experience, most particularly one who served in combat, will point this fact out to you if not take offense at the notion that you (the collective, not you, specifically) are misrepresenting the military.

If you're making a comedy, hey, ball's in your court, dig? Just expect from flack from those in the know.

[DaveKuzminski]

Look back into history for precedents. You might find examples of what you want to have happen in the Phillipines theater or Wake Island. If I remember what I've read, we enlisted civilians in the Phillipines to be guerilla fighters and on Wake Island I think the civilian contractors might have been given weapons so they could defend themselves. There are probably other theaters in that war where it may have happened as well.

There was a case in the Atlantic theater where some merchant marine sailors took over a gun position after the US Navy sailors manning it were hit and either killed or put out of action. That occurred on the liberty ship Stephen Hopkins, but they weren't ordered to do so or drafted. In their case it was do or die.

You might find a few examples in the Indian Wars fought by the US Army.

I read somewhere about a reporter or cameraman who was given a weapon in Viet Nam so he could defend himself.

The same problems about arming are surfacing in Iraq for civilians, especially US citizen civilians, currently employed by the US military.

Basically, though the laws currently might prohibit such matters, it's something that military forces have dealt with throughout history. Smaller units have always found themselves forced at times to take whatever action was expedient in order to survive. However, I can't point you at any specific documentation that will definitely cover what you want.

[Enigma]

I'm sorry to keep stressing this point, but it seems unless one has never served a tour of duty, military laws and codes are often thought to be just so much nonsense.

Those in OSI, ONI, CIC and DIA ignore 'em, but, granted, spooks are a different breed of dog who can get away with anything. http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif



I can't picture the Air Force being under siege, assuming I know what the word still means, or implies, unless it's by the 101st and 82nd, for missing a DZ.

This thread seems to be pointing in the direction of atrocities, so I'm outta here!

[fedorable1]

I'm sorry to keep stressing this point, but it seems unless one has never served a tour of duty, military laws and codes are often thought to be just so much nonsense. But I really feel the necessity to continue stressing the point that if you're going for realism, it'll never happen. Never. Ever. And any reader with military experience, most particularly one who served in combat, will point this fact out to you if not take offense at the notion that you (the collective, not you, specifically) are misrepresenting the military.


You have a very legitimate point, and I think I'm going with your advice. Thanks a bunch.

but this is my take on it.

It's a life or death situation.
The group is making their last stand.
Only a few real soldiers are left and some civilians, including the kid in question.

The soldier in charge turns to the group and says 'Congrats, you've all just joined the army.'

It's more a line then an actual recruitment.

The subtext would be 'If you want to live then you better turn yourselves into warriors real soon.' And maybe only the kid rises to the task.
He's the only other "real" fighter left in the group.

Exactly!

The way I have it now, both the Major General and Lieutenant General tell the heroine (the protagonist in question) to stay out of the fight. Basically, "find a hole somewhere and stay in it." The heroine repeatedly keeps jumping into the fray, however, and rather than have her arrested the Major General basically says "You want to fight and die so badly? Here's a gun, stay here, knock yourself out. But we're going this way."

Soon, the heroine literally is the only determined fighter left to defend the city - which had been officially "abandoned" for days - and because an unoffical soldier and leader by default.

PS. A great big THANK YOU to all those who serve/served our Country.
Here Here!!

[Jamesaritchie]

It isn't about recruitment, really. In a time of crisis, under impending danger, several things can happen. One that has happen is the military passing out weapons to civilians. There must be extreme reason for this, but it can happen. Fight or die is a longstanding traidtion Especially in the US, the civilian soldier has a long tradition.

I suppose you can't really make anyone fight if they refuse, but you can certainly let them fight if they're willing, and refuse to defend them if they do not.

And martial law carries all sorts of consequences that are not legal at any other time.

[fedorable1]

Same question, different scenerio.

* Over three thousand enemies are closing in on the city.
* There are roughly 200 soldiers there to defend it, and several thousand civilians that still haven't evactuated.
* Escape is pretty much out of the question.
* There is no word on reinforcements.
* The vast majority of civilians will fight if need be, but would obviously rather not.

In such a scenerio, would the military:

A) Arm any able-bodied civilians long enough to hold the enemy off.
B) Order the civilians back into the city, pray to their chosen diety, and attempt to fend off the enemy themselves.

From what I've read so far, it seems that B would be more legally accurate, but A is also very likely. Just making sure.

[James D. Macdonald]

Nope. Under attack or not. The citizen's effort to volunteer would not be taken into consideration. No effort would be made to arm the civilian. Arming them would, by default, mark them as opponents to the enemy.


I think you just proved that the Iraqi Insurgency doesn't exist.

[AncientEagle]

The original question keeps being modified. It was, as I understood it, can a senior military officer "recruit someone" to fight in an emergency. The question was then clarified by comparing it to the old "you've just been deputized."

I guess I'm just an example of the famous military mind, but when you use the word "recruit" in that fashion, I think of the whole, long, legal mumbo-jumbo and all the technicalities involved in recruiting someone for military service. And in that sense, the answer is still no.

But if your military unit is on the verge of being overrun, there is a civilian on the ground with you, it's a life or death situation - who cares about whether you can or not? You just do. Everybody would very likely take up whatever weapon was available and use it. Yes, the civilian contractors on Wake Island manned gun positions. Civilians were recruited as guerilla fighters in the P.I., but that has some different legal ramifications. Civilians captured fighting against an enemy force may face some special horrors, but if you are about to be killed anyway, you aren't likely to weigh one horror against another.

But as the original questin was stated: No.

[Boo_Radley]

I think you just proved that the Iraqi Insurgency doesn't exist.

We're not talking Iraqi soldiers. The original question, once again, was whether or not a high ranking U.S. General has the authority to recruit a citizen on the spot, arm them, and send them into combat. Myself (a military vet) and other members (one of them a thirty-year vet), have stated the answer to this question numerous times, and that answer is "No."

Don't believe us? Join the service and find out.;)

[Mac H.]

The original question, once again, was whether or not a high ranking U.S. General has the authority to recruit a citizen on the spot, arm them, and send them into combat. Myself (a military vet) and other members (one of them a thirty-year vet), have stated the answer to this question numerous times, and that answer is "No."

I think we are agreed that it is the answer. That these really are the rules. The bickering seems to be about under what conditions the rules might be ignored.

One example where rules were ignored was in Singapore in WW II. The troops there were ordered to surrender, but a small group decided that they didn't want to and became guerrilla fighters. This was a big deal. To continue the battle after being ORDERED to surrender was the most serious of offences. To put it bluntly, they had earned themselves the death penalty.

What happened? They fought the guerrilla war for a few years until the Allied army returned, and then they were given medals and promotions - with a personal commendation by the President.

No mention of court martials. (Imagine the public outrage if the 'heroes' had been executed for not following orders!!!)

They were heroes. And they had broken the most strict of rules.

I guess it does happen. Not just in fiction.

Mac
(PS: Oh, and Scripter1. It's nice that you've given a big THANK YOU to all those who serve/served 'our Country'. But this is an international board. There is no 'our Country'. Many of the people on this board (even some on this very thread) are from countries that have fought AGAINST yours in past wars.)

[James D. Macdonald]

Don't believe us? Join the service and find out.;)

08MAY73-01JUN88. Started as an E-1, ended as an O-3.

If you're about to be overrun, and all the civilians are going to be killed anyway, I don't see any reason not to open the armory and let anyone who's interested take what they want.

[Joe Calabrese]

Once again...

Good drama always wins over the truth.

[DaveKuzminski]

Same question, different scenerio.

* Over three thousand enemies are closing in on the city.
* There are roughly 200 soldiers there to defend it, and several thousand civilians that still haven't evactuated.
* Escape is pretty much out of the question.
* There is no word on reinforcements.
* The vast majority of civilians will fight if need be, but would obviously rather not.

In such a scenerio, would the military:

A) Arm any able-bodied civilians long enough to hold the enemy off.
B) Order the civilians back into the city, pray to their chosen diety, and attempt to fend off the enemy themselves.

From what I've read so far, it seems that B would be more legally accurate, but A is also very likely. Just making sure.

When? Ancient times? Two centuries ago? A century? A decade? Now? Just the time factor alone will influence what the answer will be.

Whose military? The ancient Greeks? The British? The US? Again, this affects the answer.

What kinds of weapons? Ancient weapons? Early firearms? Recent to include attacks from the air? Are both sides equal in weapon technology?

What kind of city? Fortified or non-fortified? Ancient design, ramshackle shanty town, or modern? Urban or otherwise? How large is the city's surface area to be defended?

Where is the city? On a seacoast? Beside a river? In a desert? In the plains? In the mountains? On an island? In a forest or jungle? In or beside a swamp?

What kinds of supplies and logistics exist? Is fresh water available? Is there an adequate food supply to withstand a siege? These will affect decisions more than might first seem apparent.

Can the defenders present a false image of strength that might persuade the opponents to reconsider and either bypass or withdraw?

I think all of these can affect whether or not your characters will even attempt to draft other characters. Why? Because the situation might not be as severe as it appears. Go back about five or six centuries to when castles were dominant and you can find documented instances of small defensive forces of less than thirty holding off sieges by forces numbering in the high hundreds, if not the low thousands.

If you treat a fortified position as equivalent to a city, you can even compare the results of some additional battles not in or at cities to what might be the expected outcome because the defenders generally have the advantage in forcing their opponents to funnel their forces into a shrinking front whereby they can't bring all of their strength to bear at the same time against the defenders who can.

Also, if there's an escape still available, meaning the city isn't surrounded yet as implied by the remarks about evacuation, then it would not be likely for the military to attempt to draft someone thus forcing them to stay. And yes, I read that and the statements about the enemy closing in on the city and that escape was out of the question. Basically, those statements are in conflict without adequate explanation. If you mean that the people would be on foot and the enemy is in vehicles, then yes escape would be almost out of the question, but that neglects the enemy's goals. Those will also impact everything. For instance, enemy forces do not typically attack a city to wipe it out. They attack to capture and neutralize it as a resource to the enemy and add it as a resource to their own efforts. Mind you, this is typical and does not take into account those instances where genocide is intended. If you have that, you're not going to have any problem with legalities in drafting civilians who would be killed anyway. Also, closing in does not mean that the city is surrounded. It could be surrounded or the statement could imply that they're attempting to do so.

[MadScientistMatt]

In such a scenerio, would the military:

A) Arm any able-bodied civilians long enough to hold the enemy off.
B) Order the civilians back into the city, pray to their chosen diety, and attempt to fend off the enemy themselves.

It might depend on the enemy's reputation for how they treat civilians. If it's a sort of enemy that is likely to simply search the civilians for weapons to be sure they're not hiding anything and set up their own police force but otherwise leave the civilians alone, they'd probably go for option B. I'd think this would probably be the case if the enemy is an official army of a nation that did not have a reputation for war crimes. If the enemy is known for indiscriminant rape and murder of civilians, like the Janjaweed in Sudan, option A might be a bit more likely.

[Joe Calabrese]

Facts are changed for drama all the time.

Jurassic Park technically should have been called Cretaceous Park, but Jurrassic is more a familiar name to the avarage Joe. Technically, a bullet will go through a car door but the heroes need a place to protect themselves, so we changed the facts. In reality, William Wallace was a drunk, who picked a bar fights with English soldiers and became a rebel. He had no wife, no hinted love affair with a princess, no war with the Prince (who was only 10 in reality). Braveheart made changes to history for the sake of good drama.

We've seen so many films where civilians take up arms with the aid of the military, who is desparate.

Stargate SG1 (Movie and TV)
Red Dawn
Mars Attacks
The Russians are Coming

Just to name a few off the top of my head. I'm sure there are hundreds of examples.


Audience expectations would be that if the military needs help, they would grab who ever is available, who ever can hold a gun. Most people in the audience won't be watching the film with a copy of the military code in their back pocket.

In your story, I doubt there would be a formal ceremony to draft them or even pin Private stripes on them, but the audience will buy whatever you tell them as long as there is a justified need or a plausible explanation. Even so, we have seen it many times before.

Let's face it, your writing fiction, not a documentary.

The moral question of being true to "facts" and not pissing military people off who will see the film is a debate best suited for your own personal tastes. If you worry so much about whether a vet will be pissed or not, then don't use it.

If you think it justifiable, go for it. It won't be the first time history or "facts" will be fudged for the sake of drama and it won't be the last.

Rather than ask us if a civilian can get drafted on the spot, present your scenario and ask if it FEELS real, not IS real.

[DaveKuzminski]

If you think it justifiable, go for it. It won't be the first time history or "facts" will be fudged for the sake of drama and it won't be the last.


That's probably the best advice I've seen yet.

[Ivonia]

Great reply there Joe, and I agree, if it seems plausible, I don't really care for the most part, as long as it's enjoyable.

As for military films, or really, any film involving modern day guns, I have more issue with the "infinite ammo" clips hehe. It hasn't been violated as much lately, but there's still times where people can shoot 100+ rounds from one magazine (that can probably only hold maybe 30 rounds). Starship Troopers does this in the first film, and I also question the tactics they use, such as sending infantry enmasse with no heavy close range weapons, artillery or air support, and having them get in each other's line of fire, but I forgive it overall because the fight scenes are kind of fun to watch.

Another sort of weird/good example here, in True Lies, Ah'nuld (Arnold Schwarznegger) more or less just steals that Harrier Jet towards the end of the movie to save his daughter. I don't recall being given any indication that he's qualified to fly that thing, but I don't really care, because Ah'nuld looks pretty badass flying that thing, and it's also kind of cool watching him blow up the terrorists with it as well.

In real life, he would've most likely gotten thrown in jail, or at least given a really hefty fine (I'm not sure, cause I've never stolen a military jet hehe), and assuming he didn't know how to fly one, if he took it he probably would've crashed it into the building where his daughter was. But because it's Ah'nuld in an action movie, he can't do that, so he's just automatically cool like that, knows how to fly that Harrier, and takes it to save the day in the end. And the audience for the most part won't argue with that.

Another few facts that's twisted for the sake of a cool movie. It has a ton of other flaws in it, but I really enjoyed Independence Day. I don't think that the military would've realistically been able to train a bunch of civilians with a quick pep talk on how to fly the F-18's, but you have to admit, that last battle scene is pretty entertaining to watch , because now the humans can at least fight back, instead of just being cannon fodder like in their first attack.

I don't think that Will Smith would've been able to fly that spaceship having only seen it fly briefly once before (and not watching it too much either, as he had to dodge those rocks too), but it's cool watching him fly that thing in there and having Jeff Goldblum put up a virus (which strangely enough is compatible with the alien's computer system hehe), and especially the laughing skull & crossbones at the end right before they launch that nuke into the mothership.

Like Joe said, bottomline for an "average person" like me, as long as the movie is entertaining, I'm willing to suspend my logic for a while. Yeah, I might complain about some of the flaws, but as long as it's not too extreme (such as someone getting shot in the arm or leg, but they're able to use it as if they never got shot), I don't care too much about all the little details.

[dpaterso]

Another sort of weird/good example here, in True Lies, Ah'nuld (Arnold Schwarznegger) more or less just steals that Harrier Jet towards the end of the movie to save his daughter. I don't recall being given any indication that he's qualified to fly that thing, but I don't really care, because Ah'nuld looks pretty badass flying that thing, and it's also kind of cool watching him blow up the terrorists with it as well.

In real life, he would've most likely gotten thrown in jail, or at least given a really hefty fine (I'm not sure, cause I've never stolen a military jet hehe), and assuming he didn't know how to fly one, if he took it he probably would've crashed it into the building where his daughter was. But because it's Ah'nuld in an action movie, he can't do that, so he's just automatically cool like that, knows how to fly that Harrier, and takes it to save the day in the end. And the audience for the most part won't argue with that.Trivial/picky mode, in TRUE LIES Arnie's character was working for OMEGA, "the last line of defense," a top-secret government agency whose authorization came direct from the White House. Tom Arnold's character tells the Marine Corps pilot it's been a while since Arnie flew one of these things (as Arnie totals a cop car before flying away) but there's little doubt that Arnie had flying hours plus the OK from on high to commandeer the Harrier.

It would however be interesting to see what would happen if the real-life Mr. Schwarzenegger appropriated a Harrier without authorization or consent, and wrecked millions of dollars worth of U.S. military hardware. I'd pay to see that.

-Derek
Derek's Web Page - stories, screenplays, novels, insanity. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/DPaterson57/scripts.htm)