End the All-Volunteer Force

[AmericanPride]

Tom Ricks says we should end the all-volunteer force (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-time-to-toss-the-all-volunteer-military/2012/04/19/gIQAwFV3TT_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage).

[Ken White]

Confirming my long held opinion of his twittishness (and military ignorance) he states:
The drawbacks of the all-volunteer force are not military, but political and ethical.His proposed solution that political and ethical failure is to punish as many people -- himself not included -- as possible by reintroducing conscription. :rolleyes:

While that's a typical US solution to a problem -- ignore the cause, attack the symptom, punish the innocent -- he's supposed to be one of the smart guys...

He continues:
One percent of the nation has carried almost all the burden of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the rest of us essentially went shopping. When the wars turned sour, we could turn our backs.What would he have the rest of the nation do; sit at home and mope? People have choices, if they make poor choices, that becomes their problem and the 'fix' needs to address the target, the politicians and their lack of ethics, not the bystanders.

Contrary to this summation:
A draft would be good for our nation and ultimately for our military.It would do nothing worthwhile for the nation, would not affect the attitude, politics or ethics of most American in the slightest degree and would in the long term be detrimental to the armed forces. Misuse of personnel is bad enough now; give the system a large influx of manpower and the waste would be incalculable. Our overall quality of training is bad enough now, catering for the 'fairness' and inclusiveness' that Congress would insist upon would only result in greater degradation... :mad:

[Entropy]

Mr. Ricks has written on this topic before and some of his arguments are problematic. First he points out that only 1% of Americans bear the burden for Iraq and Afghanistan. All true, but then he says that conscription "is the best way to reconnect the people with the armed services." Unless he's going to greatly expand end strength it will still be 1% bearing the burden and like today, most people won't know anyone who serves.

The big problem though, and the question Rick's doesn't answer (and he's been asked it before) is: How, given our political system, will that small portion of the population be chosen fairly considering there's over 4 million men and women who reach military age every single year?

[Rose]

Resuming conscription is the best way to reconnect the people with the armed services. Yes, reestablishing a draft, with all its Vietnam-era connotations, would cause problems for the military, but those could never be as painful and expensive as fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq for almost nine years. A draft would be good for our nation and ultimately for our military

I was basically raised by a Marine Officer who was nominated for the Medal of Honor (amongst other medals) for saving his entire platoon and who has been gone since 2009. He never talked about the war until I told him I was thinking about ROTC in college (in 07). After listening to what he told me about, what he had to do just to keep his men alive, I was speechless. I could have never imagined what he had to do and that he could have lived with that especially with the way he was treated once he returned home. He didn't have a choice about joining yet he did it. When he came back, he was treated like he was Hitler incarnate by his fellow citizens who he fought for.

He wanted me to go in of my own accord, and with my eyes open to what I could face. What I remember most is the hurt and betrayal that he still felt after all those years from those protestors; the pain of having a man in his unit who didn't want to be there commit suicide; having to deal with drug addicts who you couldn't trust to protect your back. I'm sorry, but I've heard stories like his way to many times since then to think that an enlisted force would be better than the AVF we have now.

I know his experience and that of others are just anecdotal, but from everything I've read on it, it seems to sadly have been been the norm for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of service men. I think Mr. Ricks should seriously reconsider that idea.

[JMA]

I think your man, Ricks, is trying to meet his quota of words published...

If his belief is that if you have a substandard conscript army then the politicians would be more wary of committing to war then he may have a point. Then again the avoidance of military humiliation does not seem to factor into the thinking of US politicians - think Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Afghanistan - to illustrate my point.

I have repeated many times that in the military it takes 15-20 years of commissioned service for an officer to reach the rank of Lt Col and command a battalion of 600 plus men. Yet there is no barrier (in terms of qualifications and experience) to become President of the US. The same with the various Secretaries and congressmen. This is probably the (main) source of America's problems.

When it comes to protecting the nation I go with the sentiments of George Orwell:


"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

Now in order to achieve this first line of 'protection' we need to select the type of 'rough men' who will do their duty when called upon to do so... and not cobble together a force to reflect the composition of the nation and to hell with their competence as warriors... and to act as a brake on the whims of politicians.

Rather than avoiding (mostly small) wars because of the (almost) certainty of failure is it not more intelligent to have troops that are up to the task and use them more judiciously?

Conscription is or should be the last resort for a threatened nation.

[Fuchs]

It was already pointed out that the 1% stems almost entirely from the size of the occupation forces and their rotation, not from the volunteer system. This is the case-specific nonsense of Ricks.



Now the general nonsense, and I'll use the economic science toolbox to explain it:


When we spend money, we do so to motivate someone else to do something he or she would otherwise not do. Give me a haircut, allow me to leave the shop with the TV set, pay me money when my flat burned out. The amount of money needed is roughly proportional to the amount of motivation required. That's why in some countries you pay less if you bribe.

Price ~ motivation required

Now if you want a volunteer, you pay him the appropriate price for his motivation. That's fair, that's voluntary. No power advantage is used to coerce (except stop-loss etc).

If you hire a conscript, you don't need to pay him the appropriate price. instead, you can use a mix of inappropriately low price and power advantage, for coercion. This is the part about the loss of freedom through conscription.

There's also a major inefficiency involved that proves that conscription is inferior for the country in comparison to a volunteer force, at the very least until sovereignty is really at stake:
Whom do you get if you have a volunteer force? Most like the (able and) most easily motivated ones. It's like a reverse auction. You offer a price and the ones hired most easily agree, you raise and some more agree etc. In the end, you pay the marginal rate price - the price needed to motivate the last needed (wo)man. This means some are paid more than necessary to motivate them, but this waste stays in the society and doesn't account as harm done - it's just a transfer.
Compare this to conscription: You just grab some, and coerce whoever of that group is not motivated by the money. This does not include any mechanism for recruiting the most easily motivated ones. The amount of motivation based on coercion accounts for as harm done to the own society.
Even if you consider coercion + price as the sum of all mil personnel costs to society, you're still bound to arrive at the conclusion that conscription is more expensive to the society (because the volunteer system applies a technique to recruit the 'cheapest' personnel).


In short: Conscription is inferior to a volunteer force regarding general welfare


I found that most pro-conscription people are closet authoritarians, the kind of people that actually dislikes freedom and choice, no matter what they say.

[gute]

Confirming my long held opinion of his twittishness (and military ignorance) he states:His proposed solution that political and ethical failure is to punish as many people -- himself not included -- as possible by reintroducing conscription. :rolleyes:

While that's a typical US solution to a problem -- ignore the cause, attack the symptom, punish the innocent -- he's supposed to be one of the smart guys...

He continues:What would he have the rest of the nation do; sit at home and mope? People have choices, if they make poor choices, that becomes their problem and the 'fix' needs to address the target, the politicians and their lack of ethics, not the bystanders.

Contrary to this summation:It would do nothing worthwhile for the nation, would not affect the attitude, politics or ethics of most American in the slightest degree and would in the long term be detrimental to the armed forces. Misuse of personnel is bad enough now; give the system a large influx of manpower and the waste would be incalculable. Our overall quality of training is bad enough now, catering for the 'fairness' and inclusiveness' that Congress would insist upon would only result in greater degradation... :mad:

Well said Ken. I find Ricks to be an elitist snob who has used members of the military to push his agenda. Also, if we had conscription then the military would have more people like him in its ranks - you know, educated, smarter, and morally superior. Like you said Ken the rules would not apply to him and as far as I know his sons have not served. Did anybody really know who Ricks was before we went into Irag in 2003.

I can see it - bring back conscription and unionize the military.

[Van]

I am conflicted on this one.

On the one hand, I agree that we are going the way of Rome when military service was no longer a requirement for a political career. And the nature of a military speaks volumes about the transition from constitutional republic to empire. This traces back to the way the citizens, for the most part, have been disconnected from the human costs of war, and the citizen's responsibility to bear arms for ones nation.

On the other hand, Ricks, who has never served in the military, decides that the right thing for the military is to reinstate the draft, long after he is past the age to serve. So he is quick to decide that young people should be coerced into going into harm's way in a fashion that he was never subjected to.

How convenient for Ricks. I'm sure this will help his journalist career.

[AmericanPride]

It would do nothing worthwhile for the nation

Ricks argues that it will make the people more engaged with the government and its activities, which he assumes will have a positive outcome. In general, more interest would produce higher accountability as the public demands greater fidelity on policies and the assumptions that underlie them.


would not affect the attitude, politics or ethics of most American in the slightest degree and would in the long term be detrimental to the armed forces.

I disagree. The draft in the Vietnam War produced a great amount of resistance to the conflict, which was started under false pretenses, prosecuted using questionable methods and strategies, and did not result in favorable outcome for the United States. The so-called "small wars" of the GWoT have been greatly detrimental to the armed forces, including record rates in suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic and sexual abuse -- not to mention, the inability to produce a favorable political outcome for either Iraq or Afghanistan.


All true, but then he says that conscription "is the best way to reconnect the people with the armed services." Unless he's going to greatly expand end strength it will still be 1% bearing the burden and like today, most people won't know anyone who serves.

End strength won't expand until we fix the gross budget irregularities and waste in the un-auditable Defense Department's spending practices.


He wanted me to go in of my own accord, and with my eyes open to what I could face. What I remember most is the hurt and betrayal that he still felt after all those years from those protestors; the pain of having a man in his unit who didn't want to be there commit suicide; having to deal with drug addicts who you couldn't trust to protect your back. I'm sorry, but I've heard stories like his way to many times since then to think that an enlisted force would be better than the AVF we have now.

It's not much better now. I've attended more memorial services for soldiers who killed themselves than those killed in combat -- and my unit had a number of soldiers washed out due to drugs and felonies, as well as some in regular legal or financial trouble. Don't let the military commercials fool you about the general quality of the service. These trends are clearly visible in the record suicides, domestic and sexual abuse crimes, divorces, and alcohol and drug abuse (and related offenses). So I really don't see how the AVF has produced a "better quality" service-member. People will be people regardless if they are drafted or recruited.


Rather than avoiding (mostly small) wars because of the (almost) certainty of failure is it not more intelligent to have troops that are up to the task and use them more judiciously?

Ricks' point is that that system isn't working out very effectively.


In short: Conscription is inferior to a volunteer force regarding general welfare

If we're concerned about the "general welfare" of soldiers, we wouldn't send them into unfavorable combat conditions regardless of how they were recruited into service.


bring back conscription and unionize the military.

It worked out quite well in the Civil War and the World Wars. Ricks' argument isn't that a conscript force would be inherently more effective than an all-volunteer force (and I don't think the historical record demonstrates clearly either way), but that a conscript force would be aware of government policies in a democratic system and we could therefore (possibly) avoid the problems of an relatively unaccountable policy elite committing the nation to costly wars using a culturally isolated unquestioning professional military force.

[Fuchs]

If we're concerned about the "general welfare" of soldiers, we wouldn't send them into unfavorable combat conditions regardless of how they were recruited into service.

General welfare is about the country (national) level.

The one and only really good reason for war is that at times (rarely) it's the lesser evil in comparison to a bad peace.
So in the end, all 'good' participation in warfare is about the general welfare (of the own country).

[AmericanPride]

I don't see how having a medicore conscript force is any worse than an unquestioning loyal professional force barely capable of fulfilling its missions and at the hands of nearly unaccountable policy elites.

[gute]

Ricks argues that it will make the people more engaged with the government and its activities, which he assumes will have a positive outcome. In general, more interest would produce higher accountability as the public demands greater fidelity on policies and the assumptions that underlie them.

This might be true.

I disagree. The draft in the Vietnam War produced a great amount of resistance to the conflict, which was started under false pretenses, prosecuted using questionable methods and strategies, and did not result in favorable outcome for the United States. The so-called "small wars" of the GWoT have been greatly detrimental to the armed forces, including record rates in suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic and sexual abuse -- not to mention, the inability to produce a favorable political outcome for either Iraq or Afghanistan.

The draft was well in place before Vietnam and our involvement lasted more than 10 years of which about 5-7 years was large scale ground combat. Casualty rates were much higher and I believe at one point injured and killed had reached 1,000 per month. Yet, with all those conscripts it still took us ten years get out. There is no doubt in my mind that if we were taking 1,000 killed and injured a week in Afghanistan and Iraq there would be a hell of a lot more people screaming for us to come home.

End strength won't expand until we fix the gross budget irregularities and waste in the un-auditable Defense Department's spending practices.

The military is big enough - matter of fact it probably should get smaller.

It's not much better now. I've attended more memorial services for soldiers who killed themselves than those killed in combat -- and my unit had a number of soldiers washed out due to drugs and felonies, as well as some in regular legal or financial trouble. Don't let the military commercials fool you about the general quality of the service. These trends are clearly visible in the record suicides, domestic and sexual abuse crimes, divorces, and alcohol and drug abuse (and related offenses). So I really don't see how the AVF has produced a "better quality" service-member. People will be people regardless if they are drafted or recruited.

How would you what's better - did you serve in a conscripted army? And the rates - higher than Vietnam, after Vietnam, after Korea, WWII - how do you know this?

Ricks' point is that that system isn't working out very effectively.

How does he know he never served.

If we're concerned about the "general welfare" of soldiers, we wouldn't send them into unfavorable combat conditions regardless of how they were recruited into service.

Agreed.

It worked out quite well in the Civil War and the World Wars. Ricks' argument isn't that a conscript force would be inherently more effective than an all-volunteer force (and I don't think the historical record demonstrates clearly either way), but that a conscript force would be aware of government policies in a democratic system and we could therefore (possibly) avoid the problems of an relatively unaccountable policy elite committing the nation to costly wars using a culturally isolated unquestioning professional military force.

Draft riots were common in the Civil War and many a well to do man paid others to fight in his place.

I agree with the comment about unaccountable policy elites, but many a volunteer soldier has questioned the policies. Conscripts questioned the policies during the Vietnam War, but they still served.

Senator Gary Hart wrote a book about going back to a militia - interesting read.

[gute]

I apologize for my garbled response and the fact I don't know how to respond to quotes.

[AmericanPride]

There is no doubt in my mind that if we were taking 1,000 killed and injured a week in Afghanistan and Iraq there would be a hell of a lot more people screaming for us to come home.

That's Ricks' point.


How would you what's better - did you serve in a conscripted army? And the rates - higher than Vietnam, after Vietnam, after Korea, WWII - how do you know this?


How does he know he never served.


Draft riots were common in the Civil War and many a well to do man paid others to fight in his place.

How would you know if you didn't serve during the Civil War (or did you?)? :rolleyes:


I agree with the comment about unaccountable policy elites, but many a volunteer soldier has questioned the policies.

To what effect?

[Ken White]

Ricks argues that it will make the people more engaged with the government and its activities, which he assumes will have a positive outcome. In general, more interest would produce higher accountability as the public demands greater fidelity on policies and the assumptions that underlie them.Having lived and served a good many years when the Draft was operating -- as opposed to Ricks and others -- My observation was that did not occur. Given general US and world societal changes since that time, I would anticipate that to be a very flawed argument.
I disagree. The draft in the Vietnam War produced a great amount of resistance to the conflict, which was started under false pretenses, prosecuted using questionable methods and strategies, and did not result in favorable outcome for the United States. The so-called "small wars" of the GWoT have been greatly detrimental to the armed forces, including record rates in suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic and sexual abuse -- not to mention, the inability to produce a favorable political outcome for either Iraq or Afghanistan.Uh, okay -- however, I have no idea with what you disagree. I agree with what you wrote there but I do not see how that negates the quoted statements from me. You'll have to clarify that for me...

I do agree with your statements as said but my sensing is that the rates of suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic and sexual abuse are not as high as during Viet Nam though they are higher than was true in Korea. I question whether such problems are engendered by societal or military factors.
End strength won't expand until we fix the gross budget irregularities and waste in the un-auditable Defense Department's spending practices.I don't think your comment answers or even addresses Entropy's point but you and he can sort that -- I'll only point out that the Congress is a firm supporter of DoD budget opacity in practice if not in speech. They like being able to hide things there and they do so with great abandon. IOW, the gross irregularities of Congress need to be fixed before any remediation of DoD can begin.
It's not much better now. I've attended more memorial services for soldiers who killed themselves than those killed in combat ... So I really don't see how the AVF has produced a "better quality" service-member. People will be people regardless if they are drafted or recruited.Speaking as one who was there way back when and has a Son serving today as well as two others who did serve earlier, it did and has produced a "better quality" service member. If you think they're mediocre now, you shoulda been around in the 50s and 60s -- much less the 70s when there was a major drop in quality due to sociological tinkering and a targeted draft -- of marginally capable folks. Folks who survived in the system due to its over emphasis on fairness and time in service to become the senior NCOs who did not train the NCOs in your unit who allowed your troops to sink to that state... :mad:
Ricks' point is that that system isn't working out very effectively.He's-- for once -- correct but he's still attacking the wrong target. All his suggestion will do is allow the inept Politicians to give inept Commanders more troops to waste on stupid endeavors. We need to fix the Pols and fix the Command competence problesm; a Draft will do neither.
If we're concerned about the "general welfare" of soldiers, we wouldn't send them into unfavorable combat conditions regardless of how they were recruited into service.That's an interesting statement. It's also specious. While I agree that methods of incorporation are irrelevant; once incorporated, unfavorable combat conditions go with the job.
It worked out quite well in the Civil War and the World Wars.If by well, you mean adequately, true. If by well you meant anything better than adequately, I believe if you do some in depth research, you'll find it isn't so.
Ricks' argument isn't that a conscript force would be inherently more effective than an all-volunteer force (and I don't think the historical record demonstrates clearly either way), but that a conscript force would be aware of government policies in a democratic system and we could therefore (possibly) avoid the problems of an relatively unaccountable policy elite committing the nation to costly wars using a culturally isolated unquestioning professional military force.In reverse order, US history says you're wrong; the Draft did not -- absolutely did not -- have that effect in the Civil War, WW I, WW II or during Korea and the entire Cold War period. I submit that to believe today would be different is delusional -- at best... :eek:

Lastly, the world historical record does demonstrate the superiority of a volunteer force; the US record does not for a variety of reasons but primarily due to the fact that today's volunteer force is operating under personnel rules designed in 1917 for World War I, tweaked a bit for World War II, not tweaked at all for the volunteer aspect and operating under many arcane rules foisted by a bumbling Congress to insure 'fairness' and 'objectivity' in personnel assignment and selection. We have not had since WW I a pure professional force operating under professional rules, we have had and have today a hybrid force that is neither fully professional nor fully directed service.

We should try to remedy that before we decide to use mass punishment of the innocent to fix something that said punishment will not fix. As I wrote earlier, this is classic attack on symptoms as opposed to causes... :rolleyes:

[Ken White]

On the one hand, I agree that we are going the way of Rome when military service was no longer a requirement for a political career. And the nature of a military speaks volumes about the transition from constitutional republic to empire. This traces back to the way the citizens, for the most part, have been disconnected from the human costs of war, and the citizen's responsibility to bear arms for ones nation.While I can recall pre-draft, draft and post draft eras, the disconnection factor has existed more often than not. On balance, I do not find that worrisome.

However, the bit about a requirement for military experience as, if not a requirement, at least a desirable attribute for a political career is worrisome. I believe this is a factor resulting from the largely anti-military stance of the Academy nowadays and I think it speaks quite poorly of our educational establishment that such an attitude is endemic.

Of course, the chubby little retirees in Ekaterinebug who helped bring that about are understandably happy with themselves... :wry:

[Ken White]

I don't see how having a medicore conscript force is any worse than an unquestioning loyal professional force barely capable of fulfilling its missions and at the hands of nearly unaccountable policy elites.On balance, there's probably little difference. However, when those unaccountable policy elites take a once competent semi-professional force and misuse it then the barely capable force is the result. It takes little thought to see that taking a mediocre conscript force and subjecting it to the same conditions would result in even worse performance.

Appropriate is the apocryphal tale of the very drunk Sailor and Mrs F.D.Roosevelt during WW II. Said she, "You're the drunkest sailor I've ever seen." He replied, "Yeah but tomorrow I'll be sober and you'll still be ugly." That barely competent batch of volunteers can be raised to sober heights -- that mediocre crop of Conscripts cannot be -- not in a Democracy; the Legislatures won't tolerate it...
That's Ricks' point.Is it? I wonder. Didn't happen during either Korea or Viet Nam...
How would you know if you didn't serve during the Civil War (or did you?)?His quoting of history is at least as good as thine... :D

Can't speak for the Civil war but for the last draft, those that were drafted mostly did their jobs to the best of their ability. Their biggest shortfall was that training had to be short and marginal to save their limited time to serve (in an existential war, that problem still exists). Today's volunteers (most are not really professionals...) suffer from the same truncated training syllabi because the Personnel and Training systems have not been adapted for the volunteer force -- nor has selection criteria but that's another thread.
To what effect?In my observation to better effect by far than achieved by most of the drafted predecessors or the families of those draftees. Among many other things, the good effects achieved are shown by the fact that today's infantryman carries about $25K worth of gear about -- his Viet Nam era counterpart had about 10% of that amount -- and that's adjusted for inflation. The Army would never spend that much money equipping easily replaceable conscripts, they cost less to obtain and train so no need to waste money on trying to keep them alive with good, effective gear... ;)

[Entropy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropy
All true, but then he says that conscription "is the best way to reconnect the people with the armed services." Unless he's going to greatly expand end strength it will still be 1% bearing the burden and like today, most people won't know anyone who serves.

End strength won't expand until we fix the gross budget irregularities and waste in the un-auditable Defense Department's spending practices.

First of all, why would we want to raise end strength? If ones' goal is to keep "unaccountable elites" from engaging in stupid wars then giving them more resources and manpower sounds like a counterproductive strategy to me.

Secondly, my point was to address Ricks' problem, which is that most Americans have no contact with the military. Again, if less than 1% of Americans serve it doesn't matter whether they are volunteers or conscripts - 1% is 1% and most Americans will continue to have almost no contact with the military. You can make more Americans aware and interested in the military by greatly increasing the size of the force which, obviously, conscription can do. That downsides to that are, however, pretty significant. Is it really worth it to raise a 5-10 million person military for some unquantifiable goal like making Americans more aware of and in tune with their nation's military?

Regarding "unaccountable elites" let's look at the record. Our current President ran on a platform of escalation in Afghanistan and ending the war in Iraq. He got elected and fulfilled both promises. Explain to me how that is unaccountable? Additionally, both these wars were specifically authorized by acts of Congress and Congress continues to support the remaining war, Afghanistan. Seems to me the accountability is pretty clear here. Ricks' seems to think that conscription would somehow generate more opposition to the war which would force policymakers to change policy. That might be true, but it hasn't historically been the case, as Ken's pointed out.

And, the "unaccountable elites" argument is one that should make us wary of conscription, not supportive of it. After all, if elites are unaccountable, then why would it be wise to give them access to a huge source of manpower via conscription? If elites are unaccountable, why should the people give them the authority to order involuntary servitude?

If the problem is to prevent the US from engaging in large, long wars of choice, then the answer, it seems to me, is not conscription, but an overall reduction in the active duty end-strength for both the Army and Air Force. Maybe you remember this quote from one of those elites: "What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

Of course, turning the bulk of the Army and Air Force into reserve formations is just as much a fantasy policy as conscription is, but at least it has a better chance of accomplishing Ricks' major goal.

[selil]

I would ask you to think about conscription slightly differently. As in this thread the echo chamber of "warrior culture" is loud and resoundingly echoing. Conscription would break the back of elitist soldiering and sailoring culture and perhaps a little bit of that chip many carry on their shoulder. The "we suffer so you can go to the mall" drags finger nails across the chalkboard of ideology a wee bit much.

Conscription is a nasty word balanced by "public service" a nice euphemism for conscription. Before, y'all professional military types get your back up think about the country and what it means to enforce service. Service does not necessarily have to be all bullets and blood, nor does it require substantive treasure to throw at the problem. Conscription would break the back of the elitist soldier culture and perhaps infuse it with a wee bit of empathy for civilians.

I get it. Being all military is a club. No problem. What are the ramifications of that?

[Steve Blair]

Ricks is a moron. Pretty simple.

Sam, I don't think conscription would create any empathy for civilians. You'd still have that core of professional military-types who will still feel entitled to comment on things they've never experienced (while still denying the right of others to do the same thing regarding them). It would just be more focused in the officer and professional NCO side of the house.

Conscription in this country never broke the back of the elitist soldier culture...and it had ample opportunity to do so between 1945 and 1972. I think if anything it had a hand in reinforcing the "useless civilian" idea within certain sectors of the military.

That disdain and/or disconnect has been there for as long as we've had a military. What some of the military elitists lose sight of now is that in many ways they're much better off than they have ever been before (in terms of pay and benefits, at least). What we're seeing now is a much larger all-volunteer military than we've had in the past. I think that makes the elite noises much louder than they were before.

[Fuchs]

I think if anything it had a hand in reinforcing the "useless civilian" idea within certain sectors of the military.

Call your troops home, dissolve the forts and force the soldiers to live in civilian housings off-base after basic.

[Steve Blair]

Call your troops home, dissolve the forts and force the soldiers to live in civilian housings off-base after basic.

They already live off-base as often as they can. Then they draw the housing allowance.

[Entropy]

I would ask you to think about conscription slightly differently. As in this thread the echo chamber of "warrior culture" is loud and resoundingly echoing. Conscription would break the back of elitist soldiering and sailoring culture and perhaps a little bit of that chip many carry on their shoulder. The "we suffer so you can go to the mall" drags finger nails across the chalkboard of ideology a wee bit much.

Conscription is a nasty word balanced by "public service" a nice euphemism for conscription. Before, y'all professional military types get your back up think about the country and what it means to enforce service. Service does not necessarily have to be all bullets and blood, nor does it require substantive treasure to throw at the problem. Conscription would break the back of the elitist soldier culture and perhaps infuse it with a wee bit of empathy for civilians.

I get it. Being all military is a club. No problem. What are the ramifications of that?

Let's get to a fundamental question: What is the purpose of conscription?

It seems to me you and Ricks see it as a social engineering tool, either to compel policymakers to choose different policies or to "enforce service" onto Americans in order to change cultural values.

IMO implementing conscription for such purposes won't achieve the desired results and will cause numerous other problems. The evidence that such ends can be achieved via conscription is very thin to nonexistent outside the context of a major threat to the United States (such as WWII).

For me, conscription is practical question and it's purpose it to provide sufficient manpower to prosecute the nation's wars when other means (like volunteerism) are insufficient. We should, IMO, always be prepared to implement conscription (and indeed, If I were King I would extend selective service to women) if and when it becomes necessary. It should only be implemented when truly necessary however. Implementing conscription as a steady-state norm during war and peace is, in my view, not only wasteful but also damaging to the United States.

[AmericanPride]

The numbers simply do not bear illustrate the superiority of an all-volunteer force.

During the Civil War, the Union had a approximate strength of 2 million men, with 168,000 drafted, for a percentage of about 8.5%. With battlefield losses of about 20%, an 8.5% reduction in force would have been quite significant.

In WW1, the US had a personnel strength of about 4.7 million. Of that, about 3 million were inductees. That's about 64% of the total force strength.

During WW2, the US had about 13 million men under arms, with 11 million inductees; conscripts constituting about 85% of the force.

Now, the US has been involved in the so-called era of persistent conflict for eleven years, with more to come (http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?ID=1690). According to the Joint Chiefs Chairman:


But in any case, I believe I’m chairman at a time that seems less dangerous but it’s actually more dangerous. That’s the essence of what I describe as a security paradox. Although geopolitical trends are ushering in greater levels of peace and stability worldwide, destructive technologies are available to a wider and more disparate pool of adversaries. Highly accurate ballistic missiles are prevalent in every theater. Bombs made out of fertilizer can defeat and destroy our toughest mine-resistant vehicles. A cyberattack could stop this society in its tracks. And these are real threats that we face today.

What truly concerns me as chairman is that these lethal and destructive technologies are proliferating in two directions. They’re proliferating horizontally across advanced militaries in the world, and they’re proliferating vertically, down to nonstate actors, especially insurgents, terrorist groups and even transnational organized crime. As a result, more people have the ability to harm us or deny us the ability to act than at any point in my life. And that’s the security paradox.

Today, the US has an active duty force of about 1 million men, none of which are conscripts. Yet the total expenditure for the GWoT has exceeded that of every other US conflict (yes, including WW2). In the Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam, there were definitive outcomes: 3 favorable, 1 arguable, and one negative. That's not a bad track record.

During the most recent draft era (1940 - 1973), the US entered the following "wars of choice": Korea, Vietnam, and Dominican Republic. Since 1973, the US pursued the following "wars of choice": Grenada, Panama, Colombia, Iraq I and II, Bosnia/Serbia/etc, Haiti, and Libya. One could arguably add Yemen, Djibouti, Philippines, and Somalia depending on definitions. Of those, only Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, and Iraq I had a definitive and favorable outcome.

So, the institutional momentum is increasing towards a greater number of military operations accompanied by higher costs (the causes of which are well documented by Pentagon watchers) and lesser definite and favorable outcomes. Even with the economic challenges faced by the country, there is little indication of slowing, much less reversal. Higher and more complex demands are being placed on a smaller, more expensive force, with the predictable results of poor conflict outcomes, higher personnel attrition, and high service crime rates. A military "elite" (mentioned earlier in this thread) has it good with higher pay, etc than their past counterparts. But that doesn't indicate whatsoever that the total force is doing any better (i.e. winning more wars more effectively; which on the whole it isn't); it only means that living conditions expectations have increased.

Ken, and the general consensus it seems, assigns this problem to outdated personnel and training systems, and various Congressional policies; though, at the same time, it is pointed out that Congress has also dramatically increased the amount of money spent on the services, with a significant portion invested in training, personnel, and acquisition. Since 1973 (the end of the most recent draft era), Congress has elected to declare war a total of zero times, has issued a military force authorization a grand three times, and has had its war powers ignored by the President at least four times. And even though Congress has required that every federal department comply with standard financial practices, the Defense Department is the only one that has failed to do so. That doesn't incite much confidence in Congress' ability (or willingness?) to influence military policy, with specific regards to engaging in and favorably terminating conflict.

So where is, according to Ken, the "world historical record" that demonstrates the "superiority" of the all-volunteer force? Every major US conflict was won with a substantial number of conscripts. The US was engaged in less conflict (and at less cost per conflict!) with conscription than without. And, lastly, the powers of Congress were substantially stronger relative to the President in regards to war-making in the most recent draft era than with today's all-volunteer force.

[AmericanPride]

For me, conscription is practical question and it's purpose it to provide sufficient manpower to prosecute the nation's wars when other means (like volunteerism) are insufficient.

That's one outcome of conscription policy...


Implementing conscription as a steady-state norm during war and peace is, in my view, not only wasteful but also damaging to the United States.

The most recent draft era (1940 - 1973) was no more damaging to the United States than the last decade of conflict (2001 - present), and certainly no more than since 1973. US wars have been more frequent since 1973. US wars have cost more than before 1973 (yes, even with adjusted for inflation). And the outcome of those wars have been less definitive and less favorable than wars before 1973. As an addendum, the US during the most recent draft era also had fantastic economic growth and increased middle class living conditions, not to mention the civil rights movement and the expansion of women opportunities in government and the economy. Since then, the US has had stagnating incomes, the implementation of a regressive tax code, the diminishing of rights and privacy, and the weakening of Congressional war powers. So please point out how conscription is "wasteful" and "damaging" for the United States.

[Entropy]

AmericanPride,

Well, I agree that the AVF isn't any more able to win strategically incoherent wars than a conscript military can. So, yes, I guess by that metric the AVF is not superior.

Also, I find that I agree with most of your comment in general, but the problems you bring up aren't solved through conscription.


The US was engaged in less conflict (and at less cost per conflict!) with conscription than without.

I think you might want to recheck this. There was no conscription after the Civil War until 1917 (except for a brief period in 1898). It ended in 1918 and didn't come back until 1940. Historically conscription was used only when manpower was needed for war.


And, lastly, the powers of Congress were substantially stronger relative to the President in regards to war-making in the most recent draft era than with today's all-volunteer force.

Yes, now please explain how it would be different with conscription. I think you are making the mistake of believing that conscription, or the lack thereof, is the cause of all these problems you identify.


Since 1973, the US pursued the following "wars of choice": Grenada, Panama, Colombia, Iraq I and II, Bosnia/Serbia/etc, Haiti, and Libya. One could arguably add Yemen, Djibouti, Philippines, and Somalia depending on definitions. Of those, only Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, and Iraq I had a definitive and favorable outcome.

Ok, you imply the cause is conscription. Please explain how those wars would have been more successfully prosecuted with a conscript military.

[Steve Blair]

So where is, according to Ken, the "world historical record" that demonstrates the "superiority" of the all-volunteer force? Every major US conflict was won with a substantial number of conscripts. The US was engaged in less conflict (and at less cost per conflict!) with conscription than without. And, lastly, the powers of Congress were substantially stronger relative to the President in regards to war-making in the most recent draft era than with today's all-volunteer force.

Take the Civil War out of your ponderings, please. The backbone of the Union Army was state-raised volunteer units, not conscripts. The same statement applies to the Spanish-American War (and in terms of territorial gain you can't overlook the Mexican-American War...which was fought with state units and Regulars). And how many conscripts from World War I made it to the front lines?

[AmericanPride]

I think you might want to recheck this. There was no conscription after the Civil War until 1917 (except for a brief period in 1898). It ended in 1918 and didn't come back until 1940. Historically conscription was used only when manpower was needed for war.

True, with the exception of 1940 - 1973. In how many wars of choice was the US engaged in prior to 1861, between 1861 - 1917, and between 1918 -1940? How do we measure the rates of conflicts for those periods and compare them to 1940 - 1973?


Yes, now please explain how it would be different with conscription.

Congress, (first the House, then the Senate) are more responsive to the American public than President -- mostly because of term limits and continual office campaigning (see the effect of the Tea Party in 2010 and 2012 on the Republican Party). With conscription, more people would be directly involved in foreign policy process of the country. That would place conflict as a primary voter issue right next to jobs and social programs, which translates into greater pressure on the political parties (first at the local level) to address whatever issue arises. During an election year, this is accomplished through the primaries, and for the House, this occurs every other year. It may not have prevented the Iraq War, but it would have significantly influenced Congressional oversight and interest in its methods and outcomes (of course I'm pressuming that Congressional oversight has a net positive effect...)

[Entropy]

As an addendum, the US during the most recent draft era also had fantastic economic growth and increased middle class living conditions, not to mention the civil rights movement and the expansion of women opportunities in government and the economy. Since then, the US has had stagnating incomes, the implementation of a regressive tax code, the diminishing of rights and privacy, and the weakening of Congressional war powers. So please point out how conscription is "wasteful" and "damaging" for the United States.

Again, please explain how and why conscription is/was the cause for any of this. For example, the notion that the end of conscription is somehow responsible for stagnating incomes in the US is certainly a unique view, and it will be interesting to see how you will justify the link. I'd also like to see an explanation for the logical implication that a return to conscription will improve things you mention and potentially return us to the pre-1973 status quo ante. Finally, I'd like to understand exactly how we can increase "our rights and privacy" through the mechanism of mandatory, enforced servitude to the US Government.

[AmericanPride]

Take the Civil War out of your ponderings, please. The backbone of the Union Army was state-raised volunteer units, not conscripts.

I will ignore the Civil War if you can demonstrate that the Confederate Army ignored 168,000 (or 8.5%) men of the Union Army during the war. :rolleyes:


The same statement applies to the Spanish-American War (and in terms of territorial gain you can't overlook the Mexican-American War...which was fought with state units and Regulars.)

Where have I argued that an all volunteer force is incapable of producing positive outcomes? I don't think I have -- instead, I have pointed out the successes of conscription in the United States and that the all-volunteer force isn't all it's cracked up to be in regards to the welfare of the nation or outcomes of US conflicts.

[AmericanPride]

For example, the notion that the end of conscription is somehow responsible for stagnating incomes in the US is certainly a unique view, and it will be interesting to see how you will justify the link.

You claimed that a new draft would be "wasteful" and "damaging" to the United States. I'm only pointing out that middle class Americans were economically and politically better off during the most recent draft period than during the years since, which challenges the idea that a new draft would somehow be an unmitigated disaster to America and Americans.


I'd also like to see an explanation for the logical implication that a return to conscription will improve things you mention and potentially return us to the pre-1973 status quo ante.


Finally, I'd like to understand exactly how we can increase "our rights and privacy" through the mechanism of mandatory, enforced servitude to the US Government.

I haven't argued that it would -- I've only pointed out that these things were better during the most recent draft period than after it with the all-volunteer force. Whether a new draft would reverse it, I don't know -- but it certainly couldn't be worse than the unsustainable all-volunteer force we have now.

[Entropy]

The most recent draft era (1940 - 1973) was no more damaging to the United States than the last decade of conflict (2001 - present)

I should explain what I mean by "damaging to the United States." I'm specifically not talking about foreign threats, but domestic tranquility and equality.

Universal conscription is not really practical since about 4 million young adults reach 18 each year. So the question becomes a political one of who gets drafted and who doesn't. I don't think this can be accomplished equitably except, perhaps, in times of great military necessity (ie. a large conflict which requires lots of manpower which is when you'd need a draft anyway). Inevitably, those with more political influence will be less likely to be drafted than those with less political influence. We are still living with some of those issues from the last draft (see GWB and Bill Clinton). So, I think a return to the draft would enlarge divisions within America, not diminish them, and I think that is what would be damaging to America.



I'm only pointing out that middle class Americans were economically and politically better off during the most recent draft period than during the years since, which challenges the idea that a new draft would somehow be an unmitigated disaster to America and Americans.


Well, first of all, I never said or suggested a draft would be an "unmitigated disaster" for the US. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't editorialize my comments.

Edit: I forgot to add about "wasteful." IMO, taking capital and labor out of the civilian economy absent a military necessity is wasteful.

Secondly, well, uh, ok, you're just pointing things out. If you can't explain how conscription is remotely relevant to the issues you pointed out, then perhaps you can explain your purpose in raising issues that aren't relevant to conscription.

Let's get back to that fundamental question for a minute: What is the purpose of conscription?

[Steve Blair]

I will ignore the Civil War if you can demonstrate that the Confederate Army ignored 168,000 (or 8.5%) men of the Union Army during the war. :rolleyes:

You continue to avoid the fact that the BACKBONE of the Union Army was state volunteer regiments. I understand that the 8.5% figure fits in with your pro-conscription position, but it still doesn't square with the military facts of that conflict. To reverse the statistics, 91.5% of the Union Army was NOT conscripted. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but based on strength before the Civil War and the declining Regular enlistments when compared to state units, I would expect that fully 85%-90% of the total Union force was in fact state volunteer units (at the start of the war the Regulars numbered around 23,000).

Has it ever occurred to you that many of the failings that exist in the current force (poor training, personnel system, etc.) exist primarily because they were developed with a conscript force in mind?

What makes the volunteer force unsustainable is the attempt to maintain it at levels more suited to a Cold War, conscription-based force. It seems to me that you're trying to tailor the force to that model rather than looking at a more realistic vision for the force. Volunteer forces are the norm in American military history, not the exception.

[Steve Blair]

Universal conscription is not really practical since about 4 million young adults reach 18 each year. So the question becomes a political one of who gets drafted and who doesn't. I don't think this can be accomplished equitably except, perhaps, in times of great military necessity (ie. a large conflict which requires lots of manpower which is when you'd need a draft anyway). Inevitably, those with more political influence will be less likely to be drafted than those with less political influence. We are still living with some of those issues from the last draft (see GWB and Bill Clinton). So, I think a return to the draft would enlarge divisions within America, not diminish them, and I think that is what would be damaging to America.

And this was what came into play with many of the draft exemptions that came into force in the early 1960s. It was never universal service, and when less force was needed it became even less universal. And when the need came to ramp up calls, it was only natural to target those who were in no shape to politically resist those calls (the lower class) or not inclined to do so (the middle class).

[Fuchs]

To reverse the statistics, 91.5% of the Union Army was NOT conscripted.

Well, there was apparently some stop-loss policy regarding some (many?) regiments. That's a very close equivalent to conscription.

[Steve Blair]

Well, there was apparently some stop-loss policy regarding some (many?) regiments. That's a very close equivalent to conscription.

Not that many once you clear the first 90-day volunteers. There were strong attempts to get regiments to reenlist when the first long-term volunteer units reached the end of their enlistments (roughly 1863-64 depending on the unit and when it first entered service), but that was about it as far as I know. Most opted to reenlist, either as a unit or as individuals. Those who did went on extended furloughs and were entitled to add "Veteran" to their regimental title if they extended as a unit. Of course, by that point in the war many regiments were down to a couple of hundred men, since states raised new regiments rather than reconstitute those already in service.

[wm]

By the time the US got into WWI, the majority of the other combatants had bled themselves white through almost 4 years of conflict. It is little wonder that the US was able to inject success into the Allied side. But even that success came only after significant additional training of the AEF was provided after its arrival in France.
Similarly, in WWII, the US did not have much of a ground force presence until 1943, while again, the rest of the combatants had been slugging it out for some 3-4 years. The American conscripts had a good 2 years to get trained, both in CONUS and, in the European theater, in England beforing being committed. The early US operations in North Africa were a travesty. Guadalcanal was, likewise, not a real good example of effective use of a ground force by the US. The casualty counts in the island hopping campaigns says something negative about the effective use of of US troops as well, in my opinion--might all be a leadership issue, but not every leader wasa member of the "regular" force.

An unrelated criticism of American Pride's line of reasoning is that the appeal to the better state of affairs during the Baby Boom period is really committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent (amounts to the same thing). Prosperity was to be had in America after WWII and American had a draft at the same time. That is about all I haver seen supported by American Pride's claim. What is the casual connection between prosperity and conscription?
If I remember my history, the US had an economic boom in the 1880s and
90s without any conscription underway. That would seem to be a counter example to the alleged connection between conscription and prosperity.

[AmericanPride]

Universal conscription is not really practical since about 4 million young adults reach 18 each year. So the question becomes a political one of who gets drafted and who doesn't. I don't think this can be accomplished equitably except, perhaps, in times of great military necessity (ie. a large conflict which requires lots of manpower which is when you'd need a draft anyway). Inevitably, those with more political influence will be less likely to be drafted than those with less political influence. We are still living with some of those issues from the last draft (see GWB and Bill Clinton). So, I think a return to the draft would enlarge divisions within America, not diminish them, and I think that is what would be damaging to America.

This is probably the greatest problem, though I think it's largely been addressed through a number of selective service reforms undertaken since 1973 to reduce exemptions and deferments. Of course, there will always be people who will seek to avoid their obligations; if someone is intent on breaking the law, the law won't stop them from doing so. The question is to what extent could this occur in the future, would it be nationally significant (as apart from politically significant for public service "careers"), and what factors could mitigate it.

Then again, the drafts in WW1 and WW2, for example, opened up the workforce to minorities and women. As of the end of 2011, the unemployment rate for young adults (18 - 24) was 16.7%. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203733504577022110945459408.html) With 4 million new young adults each year, labor is only becoming more competitive and will continue to drive down wages (in the absence of a minimum wage increase). Removing those 4 million young adults from the labor force anywhere from 2 - 24 months would (1) increase demand for labor and therefore increase wages and (2) provide surplus labor an outlet to input value into the economy. After all, it can't be assumed that we'll poor in 4 million new soldiers into a conflict every year, and they will use their labor and wages for other purposes. (If the current military demographic is any indication, it will be on beer, fishing, Nascar, and strip clubs).


Well, first of all, I never said or suggested a draft would be an "unmitigated disaster" for the US. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't editorialize my comments.

My bad.


If you can't explain how conscription is remotely relevant to the issues you pointed out, then perhaps you can explain your purpose in raising issues that aren't relevant to conscription.

It's relevant to the extent that there is no correlation between maintaining an all-volunteer force and the general welfare or security of the country. After WW2, when millions of young men were demobilized and sent home (85% of whom were draftees), they didn't just provide a baby boom. They were also provided financial and educational benefits that lead to the post-war economic boom, in turn financing today's infrastructure projects and social programs (including the origins of the internet). In totality, this led to higher education rates and performance, higher employment rates with higher quality jobs, higher wages across the entire class spectrum, more effective tax code, and faster technological development. Not to mention the impetus for integration of minorities and women in politics, the economy, and society (and even the school lunch program) as a result of the war's demands and continued requirements of national security.

In fact, it's generally established that maintaining an all-volunteer force has the opposite effect. Every dollar spent on defense is a net drain on the economy, with the opportunity cost being the higher returns in economic activity and job growth that could have been gained by investing in education, infrastructure, health, or technology. The military "culture" is increasingly a southern-Christian-conservative culture with a fantasy "warrior culture" at odds with most demographics of American society (with the exception of the southern-Christian-conservatives that enlist in large numbers). Now, today's SWJ blogpost did posit the interesting idea of tying counter-insurgency projects to development projects here at home, which may in some way mitigate the high cost/low output (read: inefficiency) problem of the AVF.


You continue to avoid the fact that the BACKBONE of the Union Army was state volunteer regiments. I understand that the 8.5% figure fits in with your pro-conscription position, but it still doesn't square with the military facts of that conflict.

I'm not avoiding any fact. Duh, the corollary to 8.5% is 91.5%. So what? How does that make the service of 168,000 men insignificant? How is 8.5% a statistically insignificant number? The obvious fact is that despite the general mythos captured in the New York Draft Riot, almost a tenth of all soldiers in the Union Army were draftees.


Has it ever occurred to you that many of the failings that exist in the current force (poor training, personnel system, etc.) exist primarily because they were developed with a conscript force in mind?

Actually, I think it more has to do with poor strategic leadership, gross budgetary waste and inefficiency coupled with no accountability, and a cultural obsession with high speed, low drag next-generation equipment instead of manpower. The quality of the soldier does not change with how he was recruited (or are the 85% of drafted WW2 veterans not a part of the Greatest Generation?) but instead with leadership and policy. I never argued the AVF to be inept... it's simply just not as effective as our most recent use of a conscripted force.


What makes the volunteer force unsustainable is the attempt to maintain it at levels more suited to a Cold War, conscription-based force

No -- it's unsustainable because of the defense death spiral which can only be profitable at the expense of long-term military readiness. Of the top 20 countries by active-duty end-strength, 13 have more soldiers per 1000 capita than the US. None of those, excluding the US, are in the top 20 of economies by GDP and none of them exceed the US in defense expenditures per capita either. So that tells me that while the US has much higher capacity to maintain a professional military force, the excess 'space' created by a larger economy is being consumed by inefficiencies in the defense budget. Treasure is the sinews of war, and we're not spending ours effectively. That is why the all-volunteer force is unsustainable.


And this was what came into play with many of the draft exemptions that came into force in the early 1960s. It was never universal service, and when less force was needed it became even less universal. And when the need came to ramp up calls, it was only natural to target those who were in no shape to politically resist those calls (the lower class) or not inclined to do so (the middle class).

How does this compare to the fact that war has now become an exclusively middle class burden, both in service and in financing?

[AmericanPride]

By the time the US got into WWI, the majority of the other combatants had bled themselves white through almost 4 years of conflict. It is little wonder that the US was able to inject success into the Allied side. But even that success came only after significant additional training of the AEF was provided after its arrival in France.
Similarly, in WWII, the US did not have much of a ground force presence until 1943, while again, the rest of the combatants had been slugging it out for some 3-4 years. The American conscripts had a good 2 years to get trained, both in CONUS and, in the European theater, in England beforing being committed. The early US operations in North Africa were a travesty. Guadalcanal was, likewise, not a real good example of effective use of a ground force by the US. The casualty counts in the island hopping campaigns says something negative about the effective use of of US troops as well, in my opinion--might all be a leadership issue, but not every leader wasa member of the "regular" force.

How does the effective use of draftees (i.e. the attainment of a favorable political outcome in a conflict) dispute the claim that draftees can be used effectively?


An unrelated criticism of American Pride's line of reasoning is that the appeal to the better state of affairs during the Baby Boom period is really committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent (amounts to the same thing). Prosperity was to be had in America after WWII and American had a draft at the same time. That is about all I haver seen supported by American Pride's claim. What is the casual connection between prosperity and conscription?

You are right -- in my previous posts I did not provide an explanation for what I see to be connections between universal national service and economic productivity. I did address that in my most recent post before this, however. One of the immediate consequences of WW2 was ending the Great Depression but the profits gained by industry during the war is not a sufficient explanation for continued economic success after the war when those military contracts disappeared and businesses went back to making butters instead of guns. The opportunity was capitalized upon by the millions of Americans (85% of them draftees) returning home who went back to school, bought houses and cars, and found good paying jobs to raise all the kids they would be having. And this opportunity was provided to them as a result of their military service, of which the vast majority was a result of involuntary induction. In comparison, the GWoT has cost the US anywhere from 3 trillion to 8 trillion dollars (take your pick), and instead of producing a post-war boom (the Iraq War is over right???), it has forced the country into a financial emergency.


If I remember my history, the US had an economic boom in the 1880s and
90s without any conscription underway. That would seem to be a counter example to the alleged connection between conscription and prosperity.

I did not claim that there were not economic booms caused by factors other than conscription programs. This is not the same as claiming that conscription programs can have a net positive affect on a country.

[Steve Blair]

I'm not avoiding any fact. Duh, the corollary to 8.5% is 91.5%. So what? How does that make the service of 168,000 men insignificant? How is 8.5% a statistically insignificant number? The obvious fact is that despite the general mythos captured in the New York Draft Riot, almost a tenth of all soldiers in the Union Army were draftees.

You are attaching a significance to a stat that it doesn't deserve. I understand that you depend on it to bolster your position, but that doesn't make it correct. The romantic attachment to the draft is just that...romantic in the old sense of the word and often unencumbered by objective analysis.

And before we get too attached to those Boomers and their accomplishments, let's also take time to consider their role in the over-inflation of the US education system (to the point where a college degree is now the paid equivalent of a high school diploma and necessary two-year technical programs are often marginalized as "not good enough" when compared to the four-year degree). How many are being pushed into the military to take advantage of various aid programs spawned by the draft in order to finance their own society-mandated post-secondary education?

And that Greatest Generation rhetoric is just that. I fail to see how feeling a draft these days would not work squares with comparison to World War II. Let's also not forget that those draftees with lower aptitude scores were usually funneled into the infantry. Or that the "total mobilization" of the US was also a reasonable amount of political rhetoric. 90 Division Gamble, anyone?

And wm, you are correct. During the later 1800s we also saw similar spikes in enlistment due to economic downturns, accompanied by an accelerated sense of moral and social superiority on the part of the officer corps when compared to the rest of US society. It's an interesting period from a military standpoint...one that we too often ignore.

[AmericanPride]

You are attaching a significance to a stat that it doesn't deserve. I understand that you depend on it to bolster your position, but that doesn't make it correct. The romantic attachment to the draft is just that...romantic in the old sense of the word and often unencumbered by objective analysis.

When you demonstrate that 8.5% is a statistically insignificant number instead of claiming it to be so, I'll take your objection about the Civil War into serious consideration.



And before we get too attached to those Boomers and their accomplishments, let's also take time to consider their role in the over-inflation of the US education system (to the point where a college degree is now the paid equivalent of a high school diploma and necessary two-year technical programs are often marginalized as "not good enough" when compared to the four-year degree).

This has more to do with the financialization of the US economy and the movement of manufacturing and other labor-intensive jobs overseas.


How many are being pushed into the military to take advantage of various aid programs spawned by the draft in order to finance their own society-mandated post-secondary education?

Not much, I presume, given that the majority of recruits come the South and the South consistently ranks in the lowest of collegiate educational attainment. Nor are college costs strongly related to demand -- skyrocketing costs (http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_articles/Education_Inflation.asp) outpaced inflation since 1985 (and only after US wages started to stagnate) because of increased administrative costs (http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2408). The education problems in this country were not caused by conscription.

[Van]

As I read the back and forth about the merits and ills of conscription, I think we are not discussing a related issue that would sabotage the drive towards a bureaucratic solution (legislating the draft, and telling the DoD "just make it happen").

75+% of the draft age people in the US are unfit for military service; "physically unfit, have not graduated from high school, or have a criminal record".

If this trend continues, we may be forced to initiate conscription, just to make numbers, but the conscription would be focused on the ones who are good enough. Consider the political ramifications of trying to draft the the kids who make all the criteria. Also, many kids would consider a draft incentive to make themselves unfit for service, thereby adding to our problems.

The diligent workers of COMINTERN and their useful idiots in academia, media, and marketing have succeeded. Military service is stigmatized by those who benefit most from it, and the people with the most to gain from service are most likely to be ineligible (look at health, education, and crime statistics broken out by economic strata).

[Van]

How many are being pushed into the military to take advantage of various aid programs spawned by the draft in order to finance their own society-mandated post-secondary education?

Steve, as an Army ROTC instructor (University of Hawaii Warrior Battalion), I would like to point out another piece of this.

With my freshmen, it usually isn't the kids, it's their parents pressuring them to chase the ROTC scholarship. Close to 20% of my students came to the class because mommy and daddy made it clear that this was their only choice (yes, some are only here for the scholarship and it was their idea, but they are rare).

They are pushed in by their parents. If mommy and daddy were a little more thoughtful, they might have noticed the swarms of other means to the ends.

[AmericanPride]

75+% of the draft age people in the US are unfit for military service; "physically unfit, have not graduated from high school, or have a criminal record".

That is a serious issue that you raise -- and it's one of the reasons why the middle class, with generally higher rates of education and lower rates of criminal activity, bears the burden of military service (the rich, obviously, have better opportunities available elsewhere). But I don't think the problem is inherently the reliance on the middle class for military service (and funding, incidentally), but the fact that the military class is shrinking (http://www.npr.org/2011/09/13/140438725/census-2010-saw-poverty-rate-increase-income-drop), and with it, the number of eligible recruits. China, for example, while it has legal requirement for conscription, doesn't need it for its military requirements because it has a sufficiently large demographic from which to recruit. So, we can expand the middle class to provide a larger pool of eligible recruits, discard standards to increase recruiting, or institute a draft (based on manpower or skills requirements).

[AmericanPride]

With my freshmen, it usually isn't the kids, it's their parents pressuring them to chase the ROTC scholarship. Close to 20% of my students came to the class because mommy and daddy made it clear that this was their only choice (yes, some are only here for the scholarship and it was their idea, but they are rare).

An interesting side-note is that next to young adults, a great percentage of student debt is held by seniors (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/02/student-loan-debt-senior-citizens_n_1396713.html), presumably because they co-signed for their children and grandchildren who face ridiculous tuition fees. Given that the middle class is shrinking between across-the-board increases in prices and stagnating incomes, it should come as no surprise to anyone that more parents are pushing their kids to seek scholarships, ROTC or otherwise. I think a significant concern here is that military service is becoming increasingly insulated to one class (mostly middle class, and mostly from the south, therefore conservative and Christian).

[Steve Blair]

When you demonstrate that 8.5% is a statistically insignificant number instead of claiming it to be so, I'll take your objection about the Civil War into serious consideration.

Based on your previous record, I'm not sure if you will. But...if you want to look at a purely numeric comparison, a quote from a review of Geary's "We Need Men" is illustrative of how the Civil War draft worked:

In March 1863, the federal government elected to centralize and normalize conscription. The process adopted by the government divided conscription areas by congressional district. If a district failed to reach the quota number of volunteers, a draft lottery was then initiated. Once conscripted, the potential draftee underwent a series of examinations to determine medical fitness and the existence of hardship. Upon passing these requirements, the draftee had ten days to hire a substitute, pay a three-hundred dollar commutation fee, or join the army. Of the 292,441 names drawn during 1863, about 190,000 men were waived due to medical disability or hardship, 52,000 paid the commutation fee, and about 26,000 provided a substitute. In the end, 9,811 men, or three percent of men became conscripts.(emphasis mine)
Geary also has an article in Civil War History (Sep1986, Vol. 32 Issue 3, p208-228) that provides a nice overview of writing on this issue.

A well-researched article on the impact of the draft in two Wisconsin communities can be found here (http://www.pchswi.org/archives/misc/cwdraft.html). One line in his concluding paragraph is interesting: "I believe it is important to note again that the purpose of the draft was to stimulate volunteerism through the threat of conscription."

I don't have time to dig into it right now, but in order to really determine if your 8.5% (which might be high when compared to the number who actually reported to regiments as opposed to paying commutation or simply not showing up) was significant you'd have to determine where they went. Considering that the draft didn't gain major momentum until late 1863-early 1864, if the draftees stayed in essentially home guard units their real impact would be minimal at best (showpieces for governors wanting to show their state's determination to end the war). If they went to form new state regiments, their impact would again depend on where they served. A cursory search doesn't turn up much regarding this flow of personnel, but that's where you'd have to start to determine if that slice was significant. My take at this stage is that it was not significant. Even the unsourced Wikipedia section on this states "Of the 168,649 men procured for the Union through the draft, 117,986 were substitutes, leaving only 50,663 who had their personal services conscripted." There's not much difference between a volunteer for bounty and a paid substitute.

[Steve Blair]

Steve, as an Army ROTC instructor (University of Hawaii Warrior Battalion), I would like to point out another piece of this.

With my freshmen, it usually isn't the kids, it's their parents pressuring them to chase the ROTC scholarship. Close to 20% of my students came to the class because mommy and daddy made it clear that this was their only choice (yes, some are only here for the scholarship and it was their idea, but they are rare).

They are pushed in by their parents. If mommy and daddy were a little more thoughtful, they might have noticed the swarms of other means to the ends.

I agree. I work with ROTC as well (have for going on seven years now) and see the same thing. That to me ties back to the societal pressure to attend college. Once that decision is made for them (in many cases), they find out that they have to seek other sources of funding. Those same parents who pushed them into college won't help with tuition but still claim them as dependents, hosing them for financial aid consideration. So they look at loans or ROTC.

[AmericanPride]

Oh, Van, one last note: aside from the clear economic advantages gained from health-care reform (http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddhixon/2012/03/01/why-are-u-s-health-care-costs-so-high/), the other thing to consider is the impact on the eligibility of young middle class men for military service. This problem received some media attention (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-12-06/opinion/frum.obesity.military_1_military-personnel-physical-education-military-service?_s=PM:OPINION), last year, making it clear that health and education reform are both essential to maintaining and improving military readiness.

[AmericanPride]

Based on your previous record, I'm not sure if you will.

I'm not really concerned about my reputation on a fairly anonymous online message board.


"In March 1863, the federal government elected to centralize and normalize conscription. The process adopted by the government divided conscription areas by congressional district. If a district failed to reach the quota number of volunteers, a draft lottery was then initiated. Once conscripted, the potential draftee underwent a series of examinations to determine medical fitness and the existence of hardship. Upon passing these requirements, the draftee had ten days to hire a substitute, pay a three-hundred dollar commutation fee, or join the army. Of the 292,441 names drawn during 1863, about 190,000 men were waived due to medical disability or hardship, 52,000 paid the commutation fee, and about 26,000 provided a substitute. In the end, 9,811 men, or three percent of men became conscripts.(emphasis mine)"

Now this is the kind of response that I was expecting from people of this site's caliber. And the figures for 1864?


A cursory search doesn't turn up much regarding this flow of personnel, but that's where you'd have to start to determine if that slice was significant. My take at this stage is that it was not significant.

I agree, which is why I have gone no further than claiming that 8.5% of Union soldiers were conscripts, and on the basis of that figure alone, draftees had a substantial impact on the war's outcome.


A well-researched article on the impact of the draft in two Wisconsin communities can be found here. One line in his concluding paragraph is interesting: "I believe it is important to note again that the purpose of the draft was to stimulate volunteerism through the threat of conscription."

That's an interesting finding, and demonstrates the utility of the draft in more than simply directly fulfilling manpower requirements.

[Steve Blair]

Now this is the kind of response that I was expecting from people of this site's caliber. And the figures for 1864?



I agree, which is why I have gone no further than claiming that 8.5% of Union soldiers were conscripts, and on the basis of that figure alone, draftees had a substantial impact on the war's outcome.

You can dig up 1864 on your own, I expect. And I repeat that 8.5% (at most) does not mean a substantial impact. If you check out the linked article, it goes into much more detail regarding the situation in Wisconsin (a strong Union state, as were most of what were then the Western states).

[AmericanPride]

You can dig up 1864 on your own, I expect

I asked out of curiousity, not because annual numbers are relevant to my argument (they aren't). Bottom-line, up to 8.5% of soldiers were drafted; even if a substantial number were paid substitutes, those are still individuals inducted through the draft system. If we really want to get into the nuts and bolts, we can find out where those draftees (or their paid replacements) ended up during the conflict. But I can see you are just as content with simply assuming they were insignificant to the conflict as I am in assuming they were significant. And that's fine. The most relevant measurement of conscription's benefits is during 1940 - 1973.

[AmericanPride]

In 1991, Cato Institute's Doug Bandow made an argument about America not needing conscription (http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-006.html). In it, he asserts:


Although public dissatisfaction eventually ended American involvement in Vietnam, it took years for political opposition to build, a period during which tens of thousands of Americans died needlessly. An AVF might have ended the war far sooner, since young people would simply have stopped volunteering.

I wonder how the numbers bear out in recruitment/retention figures compared to the popular opinion of the conduct of the Iraq War II. But then again, is there really any direct correlation between recruitment/retention and public opinion? After all, the military burden of the last 10 years has been carried heavily by one demographic and is not necessarily reflective of national opinions. And low retention levels ended up only affecting recruitment standards and enlistment bonuses.

Of course, for Bandow's argument to be valid on this point, he must assume that ending the conflict on unfavorable terms is preferable to having a draft system in place (which says alot about his view on national interests).

Bandow eventually concludes:


Our prob- lem today is not a military filled with those who want to be there but a political leadership willing to risk war for peripheral interests. A draft cannot change that. If it could, we would not have had to construct a memorial to 58,000 people who died in a purposeless war two decades ago.

I don't think Ricks (or myself) would argue that an all-volunteer military is inherently problematic, but instead that it carries risks of it own, some of which are very costly and questionable and could be addressed by an alternative system.

[carl]

With my freshmen, it usually isn't the kids, it's their parents pressuring them to chase the ROTC scholarship. Close to 20% of my students came to the class because mommy and daddy made it clear that this was their only choice (yes, some are only here for the scholarship and it was their idea, but they are rare).

They are pushed in by their parents. If mommy and daddy were a little more thoughtful, they might have noticed the swarms of other means to the ends.

What is wrong with that? I know some of the famous American generals and admirals of the past went to the service academies because it is the only way they could get a college education. I know a guy who went to the AFA because that was the only way he could afford to go to college. If mommy and daddy made it clear that it was ROTC scholarship or nothing, could it not be because mommy and daddy have a clearer idea of the family finances? I don't think there are swarms of other means for a student who is not top flight from a family of middling means, barring student loans which are sort of like Uncle Sam as Guido the loan shark.

[carl]

As has been noted several times here, the draft isn't coming back anytime soon. It is simply not normal for a US not involved in a really big war.

But that still leaves the problem, if it is one, of the American populace being disconnected from the military, not the military being disconnected from the American populace. The Americans as a whole can't be forced into reconnecting or sharing the sacrifice or whatever. They have to want to do it. Parts now seem more apt to serve than others, there are regional differences in rates of service and especially class differences in rates of service. Those differences are volitional. If those differences are to lessen no gov policy can do it. It has to be the decision of the people. Some things gov can't do.

The thing that I think is most problematical about the class differences in service is how the elite classes, those that go to the top 105 colleges the ivies especially, those that comprise the GS triple digits, the corporate board members, the media elites etc, don't serve hardly at all. They know nothing practical at all about the military or much about military history. Yet they are the ones who direct the military to go off and make war. And they are the ones who buy the latest tech or managerial fad like the revolution in military affairs. That is a problem, but again, one that gov can't solve.

[AmericanPride]

But that still leaves the problem, if it is one, of the American populace being disconnected from the military, not the military being disconnected from the American populace. The Americans as a whole can't be forced into reconnecting or sharing the sacrifice or whatever. They have to want to do it. Parts now seem more apt to serve than others, there are regional differences in rates of service and especially class differences in rates of service. Those differences are volitional. If those differences are to lessen no gov policy can do it. It has to be the decision of the people. Some things gov can't do.

The thing that I think is most problematical about the class differences in service is how the elite classes, those that go to the top 105 colleges the ivies especially, those that comprise the GS triple digits, the corporate board members, the media elites etc, don't serve hardly at all. They know nothing practical at all about the military or much about military history. Yet they are the ones who direct the military to go off and make war. And they are the ones who buy the latest tech or managerial fad like the revolution in military affairs. That is a problem, but again, one that gov can't solve.

Government policy, or the lack thereof in some cases, has a direct bearing on military readiness, culture, and capabilities.

This report (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers) concludes that the majority of military recruits originate from middle income neighborhoods. Barriers to entry (mostly education and criminal records) preclude many of the underclass, while the upper class have better things to do with their time (and lives). This does not mean that the middle class are any more patriotic or willing to serve -- it just means, they are the only ones eligible. This is problematic because (1) the middle class is shrinking (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?pagewanted=all) while (2) the middle class also bears the greatest relative tax burden as the upper class (http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/06/14/the-high-cost-to-the-middle-class-of-low-taxes-on-the-rich/) and corporations (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/02/03/418171/corporate-taxes-40-year-low/?mobile=nc) have numerous tax practices available to reduce their effective rate. This is on top of stagnating wages since the late 1970s and wildly inflated costs in education, health-care, and food and fuel prices. This occurred simultaneously with the explosion of wealth and assets held by the upper 1 - 5% and a gradual decline in their top tax rate (from 90+% in the 1940s to theoretically 35% today).

Meanwhile, the defense budget continues to increase because its acquisition, maintenance, and personnel budgets grow without restraint. Of course, the solution for the Pentagon and Congress is not to enforce financial accountability and restrain wasteful spending, but to cut active duty end-strength, which means those same self-selected white southern-conservative middle class recruits, with their love of beer, fishing and Nascar, will bear a greater burden (the JCC estimates the world is more dangerous today than ever before (http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?ID=1690); some good the GWoT did then...) while becoming increasingly isolated from the general public. That report I cited at the beginning writes off the Southern emphasis in the military's demographics as "Southern military tradition" but I think it more has to do with Southern states consistently ranking in the bottom rung in educational attainment and economic opportunity and its general conservative bent.

It's clear by these facts and figures that government policy (and in many cases, the lack thereof) has produced a situation in which we have a culturally isolated professional military force that is not representative of the national whole (Asians in particular are underrepresented). The draft is one method of correcting this demographic problem.

EDIT: There is also a general overlap between voting patterns and military recruitment (by state), and a general unwillingness across party lines to seriously address the financial irregularities of the DoD that lead directly to self-selecting recruitment practices within a shrinking pool of willing and eligible recruits. Not only are young Americans less likely to be physically fit, but they're also more likely to be non-White or mixed race, and to live in the western US. This is not to say these groups of people do not serve, but general trends indicate that they do so in smaller numbers (and they're less likely to vote Republican, the "national security" party). The problem I see, apart from the one carl identified about class division, but also cultural division since I very much doubt military culture is going to easily change in response to demographic trends in the US.

[carl]

Government policy, or the lack thereof in some cases, has a direct bearing on military readiness, culture, and capabilities.

Absolutely true. But that was not my main point. Gov policy cannot really change American civilian cultural attitudes toward the military and military service. That is more of a long term problem in my view, especially the attitudes of the elites.


This report (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers) concludes that the majority of military recruits originate from middle income neighborhoods. Barriers to entry (mostly education and criminal records) preclude many of the underclass, while the upper class have better things to do with their time (and lives). This does not mean that the middle class are any more patriotic or willing to serve -- it just means, they are the only ones eligible.

That is not true. The middle class are not the only ones eligible. The upper classes are eligible, they choose not to join up. They may not a remunerative recruiting target but they are eligible. So they are definitely less willing to serve.


It's clear by these facts and figures that government policy (and in many cases, the lack thereof) has produced a situation in which we have a culturally isolated professional military force that is not representative of the national whole (Asians in particular are underrepresented). The draft is one method of correcting this demographic problem.

There is cultural isolation but I don't know if that is such a problem, oil field workers may be culturally isolated too but that is no great concern. People who have an interest in the war and fighting may have similar interests in other things too. The critical thing is will they obey the civilian gov and there is no evidence at all that I know of that they won't.

If there are underrepresented demographic groups in the military it is because the people in those groups aren't interested in war and fighting. Drafting them won't make them any more interested. It will just make them resentful draftees.

The draft isn't going to happen and if it were, the elites would make sure that their offspring wouldn't have to go. The elites may be interested in elected office and high number GS service but not in war and fighting. A draft won't make them interested.

[Ken White]

Ken, and the general consensus it seems, assigns this problem to outdated personnel and training systems, and various Congressional policies; though, at the same time, it is pointed out that Congress has also dramatically increased the amount of money spent on the services, with a significant portion invested in training, personnel, and acquisition.Obfuscation will get you no where :D

The American solution to any problem is to throw many at it to avoid making the hard choices to actually fix the things. Congress throws money not at training but at 'things' that are made by people, preferably in multiple districts.
So where is, according to Ken, the "world historical record" that demonstrates the "superiority" of the all-volunteer force? Every major US conflict was won with a substantial number of conscripts. The US was engaged in less conflict (and at less cost per conflict!) with conscription than without. And, lastly, the powers of Congress were substantially stronger relative to the President in regards to war-making in the most recent draft era than with today's all-volunteer force.In order, look at the competence of any of the British Commonwealth all volunteer forces over the years to include in wars and assess their performance . In particular, assess their performance in the early stages of wars and then again later after they resorted to conscription. Do not talk of 'world' norms then cite US counterfactuals -- that's reobfuscating...

Also, trying to equate societal and political changes worldwide and the effects those have on events with the presence or absence of conscription is a little disingenuous.. As for Congress -- is that current shortfall a result of a lack of conscription or of a political climate that discourages truly competent persons from running all too often; is their seeming loss of power actual or perceived and, if real (which I doubt -- abdication is abandonment, not loss...) are other factors at play in that?
With conscription, more people would be directly involved in foreign policy process of the country. That would place conflict as a primary voter issue right next to jobs and social programs, which translates into greater pressure on the political parties (first at the local level) to address whatever issue arises. During an election year, this is accomplished through the primaries, and for the House, this occurs every other year. It may not have prevented the Iraq War, but it would have significantly influenced Congressional oversight and interest in its methods and outcomes (of course I'm pressuming that Congressional oversight has a net positive effect...)History does not validate much of that; while it is theoretically correct, in actuality back in the day, few voters got exercised about much in things military. They affected defense, military and foreign policy little if at all. Truman went to Korea with out even asking Congress -- at least G. W. Bush asked; Johnson escalated Viet Nam farbeyond any common sense measure and neith the Voters or Congress made much fuss -- until the Draft started biting kids who had never been told what to do in their lives before they hit the magic age.
You claimed that a new draft would be "wasteful" and "damaging" to the United States. I'm only pointing out that middle class Americans were economically and politically better off during the most recent draft period than during the years since, which challenges the idea that a new draft would somehow be an unmitigated disaster to America and Americans.Heh. Correlation does not imply causation, much less prove it...
It's relevant to the extent that there is no correlation between maintaining an all-volunteer force and the general welfare or security of the country...does it??? You're reaching, there. :wry:
How does this compare to the fact that war has now become an exclusively middle class burden, both in service and in financing?Probably because Congress has made sure that almost half the nation pays no income taxes and because the academically endowed eschew dirty, relatively thankless work as beneath them. ;)

It is noteworthy that American Pride spends a great deal of time touting the merits of both the Civil War and WW II -- both large existential conflicts which literally call for conscription and masses of mediocrity. In those cases, the Draft worked and it also worked in Korea and Viet Nam -- even if the Army did not prosecute either war at all well. It's also worth mentioning that the senior leadership of those Armies had WW II experience and thus, a conscript Army mentality -- a problem that the US Army today still evinces. Lacking major existential war, a small professional -- not volunteer; the two types are not synonymous -- Army will better serve the nation and if done right, will be cheaper and far more fair than forced 'equality.'

Compulsory service is a political dream to solve the problems of society (and to insure the connected can avoid it and, ideally, those problems...). Unfortunately, like most socialistic dreams, every time it's been tried, it has failed. Instead of attacking the hard issue, political and military reform adherents flog conscription as an easy fix -- it is not. It isn't easy and it will not fix but rather will exacerbate the principal problems; it simply gives the system more bodies (deliberately chosen word) to play with. :mad:

This is a 'solution' that has not achieved the aims espoused by its adherents in the past and is unlikely to do so in the future. 'Fixing' the armed forces is not the answer to correcting a significant slide and failure in US societal norms. Conscription attacks the symptom and not the problems which are simply to improve training, military education and far more importantly, the political milieu.

[Ken White]

I would ask you to think about conscription slightly differently. As in this thread the echo chamber of "warrior culture" is loud and resoundingly echoing. Conscription would break the back of elitist soldiering and sailoring culture and perhaps a little bit of that chip many carry on their shoulder. The "we suffer so you can go to the mall" drags finger nails across the chalkboard of ideology a wee bit much.Elitist 'soldiers' and 'sailors' may drag their nails across your chalkboard all too often. They can be awfully annoying -- and the true and solid practitioners of the trades (they are not professions...) get as annoyed or more so than thee. They not only do not do that, they have little use for those that do. You may be hanging around the wrong crowd... ;)
Conscription is a nasty word balanced by "public service" a nice euphemism for conscription. Before, y'all professional military types get your back up think about the country and what it means to enforce service.Good point. I have thought about it, long and hard for many years and on balance am convinced that involuntary servitude is simply wrong (peace or war...). We fought a war about that IIRC.
Service does not necessarily have to be all bullets and blood, nor does it require substantive treasure to throw at the problem. Conscription would break the back of the elitist soldier culture and perhaps infuse it with a wee bit of empathy for civilians.Ah, I see. The issue is not military proficiency, heaven forbid. Not about providing needed but costly services at cut rates -- nor is it even improving citizenship and / or the civil / military relationship. It is about breaking "...the back of the elitist soldier culture" and providing empathy for civilians. :eek:

Xeyli jalebi. I've been a civilian far longer than I was a Soldier and I am empathetic toward them. Also sympathetic. When I retired, they told me I wouldn't like it (they got that right...) and that no one was in charge. They got that wrong -- EVERYbody's in charge. Thus my sympathy...
I get it. Being all military is a club. No problem. What are the ramifications of that?Huh? Well no, not really but even if you were right, what, indeed are the ramifications? Being an Academic is belonging to a club, so's being a Lawyer, Doctor, Carpenter, Law Enforcement Officer, Freight Conductor or Orchestra Conductor or dozens of other things including the ABA (any one of the four or five...), NEA, FOP or UAW. All those type can and often do belong to several varied clubs. Doesn't pass the 'So what' test IMO. :wry:

(And when the Doctors can stack the deck to keep their fees high and competition stifled, don't point out the services are different because they can do damage. I won't even mention SWAT teams... ;)).

[Entropy]

The military "culture" is increasingly a southern-Christian-conservative culture with a fantasy "warrior culture" at odds with most demographics of American society (with the exception of the southern-Christian-conservatives that enlist in large numbers).

and


(If the current military demographic is any indication, it will be on beer, fishing, Nascar, and strip clubs).

and


Of course, the solution for the Pentagon and Congress is not to enforce financial accountability and restrain wasteful spending, but to cut active duty end-strength, which means those same self-selected white southern-conservative middle class recruits, with their love of beer, fishing and Nascar, will bear a greater burden

and


I think it more has to do with Southern states consistently ranking in the bottom rung in educational attainment and economic opportunity and its general conservative bent.

Ignorant stereotyping aside, the latest statistics show that 36% of the 18-24 year-old population reside in the south while 41% of recruits come from the south. So the demographic bias to the south is a whopping 5%. That 5% bias could come from any number of factors, not just those you choose to believe. In addition to the bias, the military is more southern because more young people live in the south than other regions.

Hmm, this is interesting:


After WW2, when millions of young men were demobilized and sent home (85% of whom were draftees), they didn't just provide a baby boom. They were also provided financial and educational benefits that lead to the post-war economic boom, in turn financing today's infrastructure projects and social programs (including the origins of the internet). In totality, this led to higher education rates and performance, higher employment rates with higher quality jobs, higher wages across the entire class spectrum, more effective tax code, and faster technological development. Not to mention the impetus for integration of minorities and women in politics, the economy, and society (and even the school lunch program) as a result of the war's demands and continued requirements of national security.

Apparently I should thank conscription for the internet instead of Al Gore. Who knew? :rolleyes:

Anyway, I guess you think military spending is great, right? After all, look at all the cool things it produced, which you helpfully listed! But wait, what about this:


Every dollar spent on defense is a net drain on the economy, with the opportunity cost being the higher returns in economic activity and job growth that could have been gained by investing in education, infrastructure, health, or technology.

So, uh, how do you reconcile that? :confused:


I've only pointed out that these things were better during the most recent draft period than after it with the all-volunteer force.

I suppose I could point out irrelevant things that were worse when the draft was implemented. There certainly is a huge list to choose from and by doing so I could imply that the AVF is clearly better without having to provide actual evidence or a coherent argument. But that would be pointless and dishonest or ignorant, wouldn't it? ;)

[AmericanPride]

In order, look at the competence of any of the British Commonwealth all volunteer forces over the years to include in wars and assess their performance . In particular, assess their performance in the early stages of wars and then again later after they resorted to conscription.

Yes -- let's look at that one as well. The British military record is no more spectacular than any other European power, with or without conscription, and its history includes a mix of notable victories and defeats. This is unchanged whether we are talking about pre- or post- Napoleonic Era, or pre- or post- World Wars. I'm not concerned about small unit performance as I am with definitive and favorable terminations of conflict.


Also, trying to equate societal and political changes worldwide and the effects those have on events with the presence or absence of conscription is a little disingenuous.

There's a clear, documented relationship between the US draft 1940 - 1973 and American prosperity in that era. There's also a clear relationship between present US defense spending with the all-volunteer force and the political and economic consequences of military policy.


As for Congress -- is that current shortfall a result of a lack of conscription or of a political climate that discourages truly competent persons from running all too often; is their seeming loss of power actual or perceived and, if real (which I doubt -- abdication is abandonment, not loss...) are other factors at play in that?

It's a lack of political will fueled in part by public apathy, which in turn is a result of the gradual separation of Americans from the policy process and its consequences.


Johnson escalated Viet Nam farbeyond any common sense measure and neith the Voters or Congress made much fuss -- until the Draft started biting kids who had never been told what to do in their lives before they hit the magic age

That's the point of Ricks' argument.....


Compulsory service is a political dream to solve the problems of society (and to insure the connected can avoid it and, ideally, those problems...). Unfortunately, like most socialistic dreams, every time it's been tried, it has failed.

Socialism is the about the social ownership of the means production, which has nothing to do with conscription. Governments of all kinds, most of them not socialist, have used conscription at one point or another. Nice gimmick though.


'Fixing' the armed forces is not the answer to correcting a significant slide and failure in US societal norms.

It's not American society spending trillions of dollars and producing little in the way of favorable and definitive political outcomes for America's conflicts. Since 1973, it's been the all-volunteer force. The AVF has had mixed results in winning America's wars. So yes, it is the military, not American society which the military serves, that needs fixing.

[AmericanPride]

Ignorant stereotyping aside, the latest statistics show that 36% of the 18-24 year-old population reside in the south while 41% of recruits come from the south. So the demographic bias to the south is a whopping 5%. That 5% bias could come from any number of factors, not just those you choose to believe. In addition to the bias, the military is more southern because more young people live in the south than other regions.

It's not bias, it's fact. The South has consistently had higher enlistment rates (http://nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2011/military-recruitment-2010/) than the rest of the country. Six of the top ten states were in the South. And yes, beer (http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/cause-of-death/alcohol/by-state/), fishing (http://www.asafishing.org/images/statistics/resources/Sportfishing%20in%20America%20Rev.%207%2008.pdf), and Nascar (http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/archives/21320/) are more likely among this demographic than the rest of the nation. The recruitment bias is because recruits are more likely to come from rural areas, of which a greater proportion is in the South (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/11/who-bears-the-burden-demographic-characteristics-of-us-military-recruits-before-and-after-9-11) (and then West). Rural areas also have fewer job opportunities (http://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/feb03/features/ruralamerica.htm).


Apparently I should thank conscription for the internet instead of Al Gore. Who knew?

Yup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET).


Anyway, I guess you think military spending is great, right?

Depends on the circumstances.


After all, look at all the cool things it produced, which you helpfully listed! But wait, what about this:

So, uh, how do you reconcile that? :confused:

I have previously provided in another post the connection between the latest draft period and US economic productivity. So, you wonder, what is the difference between the 1940 - 1973 era and the post 1973 era? It's quite simple: unlike the draft period where trillions of dollars were spread across multiple industries and invested in millions of people, today's defense economy concentrates spending in a few large corporations that produce products with narrower applications. So while it is very profitable for those companies and their investors, on the whole it is wealth destroying, with the opportunity costs (http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/articles/26/attachments/Garrett-Peltier%20%20Jobs.pdf) being the returns that may have been gained had the funds been invested elsewhere (http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/articles/31/attachments/Heintz%20military%20assets%20and%20public%20invest ment.pdf).


I suppose I could point out irrelevant things that were worse when the draft was implemented. There certainly is a huge list to choose from and by doing so I could imply that the AVF is clearly better without having to provide actual evidence or a coherent argument. But that would be pointless and dishonest or ignorant, wouldn't it? ;)

Actually, I've laid out a very clear argument about the benefits of the most recent draft period compared to the costs all-volunteer force since then.

[slapout9]

It's NASCAR not Nascar! That's Important:D

[Ken White]

The British military record is no more spectacular than any other European power... I'm not concerned about small unit performance as I am with definitive and favorable terminations of conflict.Without small unit performance there will be no definitive terminations of conflict. As for favorable, that too often lie in the realm of the Politicians -- and conscription won't fix that.

More pointedly, did you miss the word Commonwealth in there? :D
There's a clear, documented relationship between the US draft 1940 - 1973 and American prosperity in that era...There's a clear documented relationship between government policies, societal norms and prosperity in that era. The relationship of conscription is that it existed, no more.
There's also a clear relationship between present US defense spending with the all-volunteer force and the political and economic consequences of military policy.I'm not at all sure it 's clear but what is emphatically clear is that Congress not only has abrogated its responsibility with respect to the Armed Forces and wars but to virtually all its fiscal responsibilities as well. Conscription won't fix that and, based on the historical record is highly unlikely to induce broader citizen involvement.
It's a lack of political will fueled in part by public apathy, which in turn is a result of the gradual separation of Americans from the policy process and its consequences.Said separation dearly loved by the governing classes who have tacitly encouraged that lack of involvement for years -- and, again, conscription won't change that...
That's the point of Ricks' argument.....What? That we can change spoiled brats by forcing them to do something they don't want to do? Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

Again I'll point out that this is not about fixing the force or even the political milieu -- it's about sociological tinkering and determining what's 'best' for the masses by self appointed pseudo elites. Don't join that crowd, you can do better...
Socialism is the about the social ownership of the means production, which has nothing to do with conscription. Oh? Have you not suggested that conscripts could perform 'other public services?' Is that not social ownership of a means of production?

Socialism is also a political philosophy and it is noted for an elite directing things be done as they desire for the' common good' (as THEY see it) -- regrettably, the common folk generally get little say in how that will work .:mad:
Governments of all kinds, most of them not socialist, have used conscription at one point or another.As has this one which is more Socialist than many...
Nice gimmick though.Not a gimmick as you well know; the charge was that conscription was like socialistic dreams. That is accurate. Like socialism which has never really worked (because people are involved; that and the right persons have never been in charge...), conscription works well for producing mass, cannon fodder Armies -- and is good for little else -- and to tout it as a panacea is living in a dream world. Been there, done that -- it works but poorly and it's still involuntary servitude and it still has remarkably little effect on governance and adventurism.
It's not American society spending trillions of dollars and producing little in the way of favorable and definitive political outcomes for America's conflicts. Since 1973, it's been the all-volunteer force. The AVF has had mixed results in winning America's wars.That's true and you and I can probably agree that the Army is broken and truly in need of a major overhaul. We would probably agree on many things and disagree on some -- but on conscription as a cure, we'll have to disagree . Implement and it will make little to no difference, it will as I and others have tried to point out, make some things worse -- not much, admittedly but worse of any degree is not better...

Note also that American society elects those Congroids who spend trillions of dollars on a lot of really dumb stuff other than idiotic and unnecessary wars and who eschew responsibility for ANY hard decisions to curtail or cope with that spending -- or the wars.
So yes, it is the military, not American society which the military serves, that needs fixing.We can disagree on that. The AVF like every other Army, conscript or not, is a reflection of the society from which it comes. If you don't like an Army look at its roots -- that's where your problems will lie. Always.

[AmericanPride]

It's NASCAR not Nascar! That's Important

Aw shucks! I always screw that one up!


it ends up saying more about you than it does about southerners.

Like I said before, I'm not particularly concerned with my reputation on a fairly anonymous opinion board. Anyway, beer, fishing, and NASCAR (I got it right that time!) are staples of Southern culture and that shows in military culture as well. I suppose I could add tobacco too.


Additionally, being a beer-snob myself, let me tell you that you're flat out wrong about the beer (PDF File).

Yes, yes, I've seen it too, which is why the source I cited listed alcohol related deaths as opposed to alcohol consumption. I guess we could add that Southerners can't hold their beer as well northerners to the list of stereotypes. :eek:


Well, you didn't explain the discrepancy. You didn't explain why I, just to name one example, would be more productive to society instead of a net drain had I been drafted instead of volunteering.

I mentioned it here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=135231&postcount=61). Let's say you were drafted in 1940. As a private, you would have earned 50$ a month. While in the States, and in England, you probably would have spent that money while on pass. Then you get shipped off to Italy or France or some other combat zone where your opportunities to spend your wages probably totaled around zero. Suddenly the war is over, you are demobilized and you're sent home. Now you have the GI Bill. So you decide to go to medical school or law school or tech school. After graduating, you open your own practice and hire a couple of nurses and secretaries, or legal assistants, or whatever. You also buy a newly constructed home in the suburbs with your VA benefits to raise the large family you're about to start. Between 1944 and 1973, up to one third of the population follows a similar path, since the draft made them eligible for the program. Businesses are founded, neighborhoods are constructed, and families are started -- incomes rise, commerce grows, and the tax revenue increases, enabling the government to invest in education, technology (yes, like the internet), the interstate system, and so on.

Fast forward to 2012. Maybe you're a private, or a NCO, or an officer. It doesn't matter. Maybe you use the GI Bill, or Tuition Assistance, or the military's graduate studies program. Most likely, you're a careerist since retention rates are fairly high. So with the exception of the direct payments to your education institution, your education isn't value added to the economy; just your career (and only to a small extent). You don't hire anybody or start a business because the military gives you people to supervise. You might buy a home or rent, but eventually you'll leave your current neighborhood for the next one -- which might be in a foreign community. And when you deploy, you supervise or guard the construction of a new school or outpost. Or two. Or three or four. And to defend these gains invested outside of the country, you might fire a few rounds from your unit's crew served weapons or direct the targeting of a JDAM. Whatever you decide to do, you expend America's wealth abroad, not at home. It's not your fault of course; a well-to-do company makes those missiles, and the military purchases them for a few million dollars, and they're designed to be expended on the battlefield while that company's earnings are divested among its owners (some of whom may be in Congress). And maybe that school you spent a year trying to get started does get off the ground, but how many of those Iraqis and Afghans are going to grow up to start a business or own a home in America? The point is, you don't leave the service and your net economic input into the economy is equal to that of your disposable wages, since your time and energy and resources are generally spent abroad. And you repeat that process two or three or even four times.


You've established nothing. You repeatedly asserted a connection and then refused to substantiate it. When specifically challenged, you demurred and said you were only pointing out "that these things were better during the most recent draft period than after it with the all-volunteer force." Which is to say that you admited there is nothing to support the connection you say you established!

I've pointed it out here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=135198&postcount=38) and here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=135199&postcount=39). This article provides a good overview (http://articles.boston.com/2009-09-10/ae/29265095_1_gi-bill-higher-education-authors).


Clearly we need to recruit - or maybe conscript - more pirates!

That would give our multi-billion dollar warships something to do.

[wm]

How does the effective use of draftees (i.e. the attainment of a favorable political outcome in a conflict) dispute the claim that draftees can be used effectively? My point was that we have no basis for comparing whether the use of American draftees in WWI and WWII was as effective as you assert. The opponents had already brought their A team to the conflict and were now only using what was, at best, their taxi squad by the time the US got into the fight. It would be interesting to have seen how the conscript US military would have fared had they been on the battlefields of France in 1940. I suspect the outcome would have been similar to that displayed by the poilus. We do have a sample of the effectiveness of American regulars against a first-rate opponent in the Philippines in 1941-42. Here's the "score" from the Battle of Bataan (according to a Wikipedia entry)
US/Filipino: Japanese:
10,000 killed, 7,000 killed
20,000 wounded 12,000 wounded
75,000 prisoners


You are right -- in my previous posts I did not provide an explanation for what I see to be connections between universal national service and economic productivity. I did address that in my most recent post before this, however. One of the immediate consequences of WW2 was ending the Great Depression but the profits gained by industry during the war is not a sufficient explanation for continued economic success after the war when those military contracts disappeared and businesses went back to making butters instead of guns. The opportunity was capitalized upon by the millions of Americans (85% of them draftees) returning home who went back to school, bought houses and cars, and found good paying jobs to raise all the kids they would be having. And this opportunity was provided to them as a result of their military service, of which the vast majority was a result of involuntary induction. In comparison, the GWoT has cost the US anywhere from 3 trillion to 8 trillion dollars (take your pick), and instead of producing a post-war boom (the Iraq War is over right???), it has forced the country into a financial emergency.
All of the above is not tied to conscription. It is tied to the mobilization and demobilization of a massive military force, regardless of the method used to get the numbers needed into the force. Had the US forces been raised simply by the use of volunteers (a la the 90% of forces raised by the Union Army in the Civil War), I submit the same kinds of economic results would have accrued during and after WWII. BTW, if you are right about conscription and find the 8.5% draftee rate in the Civil War so significant, why was there not a "baby boom" like phenomenon in the period 1865-1880. What about the period 1918-1933? Seems to me that the US had a rather significant economic downturn in this latter period. How does that square with your assertion about the benefits of a draft army?


I did not claim that there were not economic booms caused by factors other than conscription programs. This is not the same as claiming that conscription programs can have a net positive affect on a country. But you still have not show the causal connection between conscription and economic booms that you assert. I'm still waiting to see the necessary connection between a draft and an improved economy, which sems to be the crux of your argument. If ypu wish to say a draft is sufficient to bolster a nation's economy, that is a very different point. (I still doubt it's truth, by the way). And if you prefer to assert this weaker claim, then my response is that other means to bolster economic growth are avaialble to the nation. I, for one, would prefer to use those other means rather than resorting to a draft. Using the draft reminds me of the line attributed to both UT football coach Darrel Royal and OSU football coach Woody Hayes about throwing a pass in football: three things can happen and two of them are bad.

[wm]

The most relevant measurement of conscription's benefits is during 1940 - 1973.

The period 1940-1973 is sui generis. As such, one extrapolates from it to the present day at one's peril.

A single instance of a period of benefit does not establish any kind of correlation that future periods of conscription will produce similar benefits. In fact, I think the weight of evidence presented by posters other than yourself in this thread is against the position you hold. (I do give you full marks for tenacity though.)

[selil]

But that still leaves the problem, if it is one, of the American populace being disconnected from the military, not the military being disconnected from the American populace. The Americans as a whole can't be forced into reconnecting or sharing the sacrifice or whatever. They have to want to do it.

I'd have to agree and disagree. Where I sit everyday I can point out individuals and groups that get and "don't" get what service means. There are more than a few that refer to "sillyvillians" and other such inanities. I must say though most of the military I deal with are incredibly intelligent, of superior intellect, and far from oppressed. Unfortunately there is also the vocal few. Some in leadership roles. That profess a preponderance of woes me.

Not to side track the discussion but the military retirement fiasco, the gray beard program, and the number of stars sitting at military contractors are just minor examples of profiteering from "service".

That being said I can name a number of examples of enlisted who joined after 9/11, have moved up the ranks at an incredible rate through large number of deployments, and are now at 11 years of service being kicked to the curb. Hence, my disagreeable presentation to the "service" aspect and desire to see that "service" shared among more people.

A tenuous argument but a passionate desire to see sacrifice shared.


The issue is not military proficiency, heaven forbid. Not about providing needed but costly services at cut rates -- nor is it even improving citizenship and / or the civil / military relationship. It is about breaking "...the back of the elitist soldier culture" and providing empathy for civilians. :eek:

I would argue that you already said the personnel system and educational systems are screwed so anything we do is only icing not causal. I would argue also that shared sacrifice does improve citizenship, civil, and military relationships. But, I also know that the current military has a significant focus on soft power, emergency response, and that their options for military service beyond killing people and breaking things.

To be sure I most definitely want to break the back of "elitist soldier culture". I consider it a risk to national security on par with radical leftist values, and people from Florida :)

[wm]

It's NASCAR not Nascar! I mentioned it here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=135231&postcount=61). Let's say you were drafted in 1940. As a private, you would have earned 50$ a month. While in the States, and in England, you probably would have spent that money while on pass. Then you get shipped off to Italy or France or some other combat zone where your opportunities to spend your wages probably totaled around zero. Suddenly the war is over, you are demobilized and you're sent home. Now you have the GI Bill. So you decide to go to medical school or law school or tech school. After graduating, you open your own practice and hire a couple of nurses and secretaries, or legal assistants, or whatever. You also buy a newly constructed home in the suburbs with your VA benefits to raise the large family you're about to start. Between 1944 and 1973, up to one third of the population follows a similar path, since the draft made them eligible for the program. Businesses are founded, neighborhoods are constructed, and families are started -- incomes rise, commerce grows, and the tax revenue increases, enabling the government to invest in education, technology (yes, like the internet), the interstate system, and so on.

Fast forward to 2012. Maybe you're a private, or a NCO, or an officer. It doesn't matter. Maybe you use the GI Bill, or Tuition Assistance, or the military's graduate studies program. Most likely, you're a careerist since retention rates are fairly high. So with the exception of the direct payments to your education institution, your education isn't value added to the economy; just your career (and only to a small extent). You don't hire anybody or start a business because the military gives you people to supervise. You might buy a home or rent, but eventually you'll leave your current neighborhood for the next one -- which might be in a foreign community. And when you deploy, you supervise or guard the construction of a new school or outpost. Or two. Or three or four. And to defend these gains invested outside of the country, you might fire a few rounds from your unit's crew served weapons or direct the targeting of a JDAM. Whatever you decide to do, you expend America's wealth abroad, not at home. It's not your fault of course; a well-to-do company makes those missiles, and the military purchases them for a few million dollars, and they're designed to be expended on the battlefield while that company's earnings are divested among its owners (some of whom may be in Congress). And maybe that school you spent a year trying to get started does get off the ground, but how many of those Iraqis and Afghans are going to grow up to start a business or own a home in America? The point is, you don't leave the service and your net economic input into the economy is equal to that of your disposable wages, since your time and energy and resources are generally spent abroad. And you repeat that process two or three or even four times.

If the above is your argumemnt for how a draft yields an improved economy, it has some fatal flaws. The Baby Boom scenario shows what happens after a soldier demobilizes. A draftee need not be the only one who demobilizes. The 2012 scenario only discusses part of the WII example, as it speaks only to a soldier who continues to serve.

Your description of the current defense industry is only partially correct. While a few very large companies tend to be the winners of the big contracts, every one of those contracts has a host of small businesses involved in the production of the acquired goods. (Remember supply chains!) A significant portion of defense contracts are designated as small business set asides and most contracts mandate that a portion of the work be done by small businesses as sub-contractors.

One last point--what funded all of the veterans benefits touted in your previous post? An interesting set of data points compares the national debt to the GDP. From 1944-1951, the US national debt was over 75% of GDP and exceeded 100% of GDP in 1946 and 1947. The 2 lowest decades for the ratio since 1940 were 1974-83 and 1998-2008 (both after the draft ended).

[ganulv]

There's a clear, documented relationship between the US draft 1940 - 1973 and American prosperity in that era.

But even I (:eek:) understand that correlation is not causation.

[AmericanPride]

The Baby Boom scenario shows what happens after a soldier demobilizes. A draftee need not be the only one who demobilizes.

I agree, but with the smaller all-volunteer force, there are not nearly as many demobilized soldiers because the force is smaller and many remain in the service as careerists. Just as the draft provides a massive manpower boost to the armed forces, when coupled with generous veterans' programs, it can also lead to significant economic returns. I cited this (http://articles.boston.com/2009-09-10/ae/29265095_1_gi-bill-higher-education-authors) article earlier:


The authors make it clear that the education benefits of the legislation helped spur postwar economic growth by training legions of professionals. The GI Bill, they write, “made possible the education of fourteen future Nobel laureates, two dozen Pulitzer Prize winners, three Supreme Court justices, [and] three presidents of the United States.’’ It also greatly increased access to higher education for ethnic and religious minorities who had been previously excluded.

The impact of the GI Bill would have been drastically weaker, perhaps even insignificant, without the mass demobilization following World War II (where 85% of service members were draftees), and the continued peace-time draft, giving up to one third of the population access to these benefits up until 1973.


While a few very large companies tend to be the winners of the big contracts, every one of those contracts has a host of small businesses involved in the production of the acquired goods. (Remember supply chains!) A significant portion of defense contracts are designated as small business set asides and most contracts mandate that a portion of the work be done by small businesses as sub-contractors.

I agree, but this benefit is not as great as the opportunity cost (http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/articles/26/attachments/Garrett-Peltier%20%20Jobs.pdf) of this action:


For each million dollars, federal defense spending creates 8.3 jobs both directly and indirectly in the economy. These are jobs not only for the military personnel themselves, but also jobs in vehicle manufacturing, construction, ammunition production, and other industries which supply goods and services to the military. As we see from the figure below, the same million dollars spent in other industries such as healthcare, education, or energy efficiency, creates a greater number of jobs than military spending.

In contrast to the 8.3 jobs created by $1 million in defense spending, that same level of spending would create 15.5 jobs in public education, 14.3 jobs in healthcare, 12 jobs in home weatherization, or about the same number of jobs in various renewable energy technologies. Thus it is a fallacy to claim that we need war spending in order to bolster the economy. We see here that investments in renewable energy such as solar, wind, or biomass, would create just as many jobs as military spending. Efficiency programs such
as weatherization of homes and public buildings would create about 1.5 times as many jobs, and federal support for healthcare and education would create twice as many as the same level of military spending.

The article seriously calls into question the efficacy of small wars that have little or unfavorable political outcomes but with extremely high price tags. This other article (http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/articles/31/attachments/Heintz%20military%20assets%20and%20public%20invest ment.pdf) addresses the same problem:


Heintz (2010) found that a 1% increase in investment in ‘core infrastructure’ would increase the productivity of the private sector by up to 0.2%, considering the direct effects of infrastructure investments. These estimates can be used in a hypothetical illustration. If half of the investment which built up the current stock of defense assets had been dedicated to building the core infrastructure of the U.S. economy, this would represent a 13.5% increase in the value of infrastructure assets – and a potential 2.7%
boost to private productivity (worth over $270 billion, based on current levels of private GDP).

This second article emphasizes that the US can receive greater value for its money by taking a serious look at its defense spending habits. I noted before (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=135198&postcount=38) that of the top 20 countries by active-duty end-strength, 13 have more soldiers per 1000 capita than the US. None of those, excluding the US, are in the top 20 of economies by GDP and none of them exceed the US in defense expenditures per capita either. So while we are spending (significantly) more money to field less combat power, we do not have a correlating increase in security that should presumably come along with it. Pentagon watchers in the past have noted (http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/01/02.pdf) that while defense spending increases, military readiness (and consequently effectiveness) is declining because of unexpected cost growth, production cutbacks, shrinking and aging pools of military equipment, and personnel reductions to pay for it all. This is a problem unique to the current defense political economy of the all-volunteer force that, in the last ten years, has consumed up to eight trillion dollars of US wealth. And as noted in the other articles I cited, neither does it produce in an increase in security, it is also a net drain on the economy as well. This is not to argue that defense is unnecessary, but that the current defense structure is coming at the cost of development and living conditions at home.


One last point--what funded all of the veterans benefits touted in your previous post? An interesting set of data points compares the national debt to the GDP. From 1944-1951, the US national debt was over 75% of GDP and exceeded 100% of GDP in 1946 and 1947. The 2 lowest decades for the ratio since 1940 were 1974-83 and 1998-2008 (both after the draft ended).

This is a good point and I agree that a central consequence of conscription is it's high cost. But we shouldn't be as concerned with our debt as we should be with our ability to pay for it. Much of today's political discourse is about austerity -- in other words, cutting costs to cover expenditures. But this is a failed business and economic model and rarely ever works. The aim should be for growth-based profitability, which may require greater debt to fund government programs (i.e. the interstate project or the GI bill). And as the articles I cited point out, investing in those projects would have higher returns than in defense dollar-for-dollar. So, either the way we maintain our fighting services and how those fighting services prosecute so-called "small wars" need to become more efficient, or we need to start thinking about alternative approaches to the political economy of national security. As it is, the all-volunteer force is not economically sustainable and is increasingly cost ineffective.

[AmericanPride]

In fact, I think the weight of evidence presented by posters other than yourself in this thread is against the position you hold. (I do give you full marks for tenacity though.)

Let's look at this "weight of evidence".

Ken's position focused on the unethical nature of conscription and the craven nature of politicians (mostly Congress).


[Tom Ricks'] proposed solution that political and ethical failure is to punish as many people -- himself not included -- as possible by reintroducing conscription.


People have choices, if they make poor choices, that becomes their problem and the 'fix' needs to address the target, the politicians and their lack of ethics, not the bystanders.


The American solution to any problem is to throw many at it to avoid making the hard choices to actually fix the things. Congress throws money not at training but at 'things' that are made by people, preferably in multiple districts.


Compulsory service is a political dream to solve the problems of society (and to insure the connected can avoid it and, ideally, those problems...). Unfortunately, like most socialistic dreams, every time it's been tried, it has failed.


'Fixing' the armed forces is not the answer to correcting a significant slide and failure in US societal norms.


I'm not at all sure it 's clear but what is emphatically clear is that Congress not only has abrogated its responsibility with respect to the Armed Forces and wars but to virtually all its fiscal responsibilities as well.


All his suggestion will do is allow the inept Politicians to give inept Commanders more troops to waste on stupid endeavors. We need to fix the Pols and fix the Command competence problesm

I think that sums up rather clearly Ken's objections to conscription. While he made numerous claims that conscription won't fix this or that, he really did not provide any historical or factual evidence to augment his argument nor did he point out how craven politicians and the weak-willed public are at all contradictory to the benefits of mass conscription. In some discussion, he does point out that all-volunteer forces have capable track records, but that does not necessarily demonstrate an inherent effectiveness over conscript forces.

Like some of the other posters, which I will also quote, Ken also attacks the personal motivations of the writer rather to undermine the credibility of the argument.


Confirming my long held opinion of [Tom Ricks'] twittishness (and military ignorance) he states...

Lastly, a large number of Ken's comments are anecdotal:


Having lived and served a good many years when the Draft was operating -- as opposed to Ricks and others -- My observation was that did not occur. Given general US and world societal changes since that time, I would anticipate that to be a very flawed argument.


Speaking as one who was there way back when and has a Son serving today as well as two others who did serve earlier, it did and has produced a "better quality" service member.


While I can recall pre-draft, draft and post draft eras, the disconnection factor has existed more often than not. On balance, I do not find that worrisome.


Can't speak for the Civil war but for the last draft, those that were drafted mostly did their jobs to the best of their ability.

These personal observations may be true insofar that they were perceived at one point by Ken, but that does not make it representative of the whole.

OK, on to Steve.

Steve's position is that conscription would not break or diminish military elitist culture.


Conscription in this country never broke the back of the elitist soldier culture...and it had ample opportunity to do so between 1945 and 1972. I think if anything it had a hand in reinforcing the "useless civilian" idea within certain sectors of the military.

He also objected to my use of Civil War conscripts as an example of the positive effects of conscription. His position was not that there were not positive effects, but that there any positive effects were insignificant:


Take the Civil War out of your ponderings, please. The backbone of the Union Army was state-raised volunteer units, not conscripts.


You continue to avoid the fact that the BACKBONE of the Union Army was state volunteer regiments. I understand that the 8.5% figure fits in with your pro-conscription position, but it still doesn't square with the military facts of that conflict. To reverse the statistics, 91.5% of the Union Army was NOT conscripted.

Whether or not Civil War conscripts statistics are significant is a conversation separate from whether or not conscription has positive effects.

Also, he attacks the author as well:


Ricks is a moron. Pretty simple.

Yes, very weighty evidence... :rolleyes:

Let's move on to Fuchs:

Fuchs argues that conscription is worse for the general welfare of a soldier than a volunteer force.


Now if you want a volunteer, you pay him the appropriate price for his motivation. That's fair, that's voluntary. No power advantage is used to coerce (except stop-loss etc).


If you hire a conscript, you don't need to pay him the appropriate price. instead, you can use a mix of inappropriately low price and power advantage, for coercion. This is the part about the loss of freedom through conscription.

I have not disputed his argument.

Before I move on to Entropy's comments, who has along with you, provided the most substantial counter-arguments about the positive outcome of conscription, I will quote a few other ad hominem fallacies:


I find Ricks to be an elitist snob who has used members of the military to push his agenda.


On the other hand, Ricks, who has never served in the military, decides that the right thing for the military is to reinstate the draft, long after he is past the age to serve. So he is quick to decide that young people should be coerced into going into harm's way in a fashion that he was never subjected to. How convenient for Ricks. I'm sure this will help his journalist career.


I think your man, Ricks, is trying to meet his quota of words published...

Ok, so now on to Entropy's comments.

His first objections are to the fairness of conscription:


Unless he's going to greatly expand end strength it will still be 1% bearing the burden and like today, most people won't know anyone who serves.


How, given our political system, will that small portion of the population be chosen fairly considering there's over 4 million men and women who reach military age every single year?


Universal conscription is not really practical since about 4 million young adults reach 18 each year. So the question becomes a political one of who gets drafted and who doesn't.


So, I think a return to the draft would enlarge divisions within America, not diminish them, and I think that is what would be damaging to America.

These are not necessarily counter-arguments since he is only pointing out that conscription has consequences of its own (which I do not dispute). He does not point out these consequences exceed the benefits gained, or or how these consequences are worst than the problems we are facing now. But he does go deeper eventually:


Our current President ran on a platform of escalation in Afghanistan and ending the war in Iraq. He got elected and fulfilled both promises. Explain to me how that is unaccountable? Additionally, both these wars were specifically authorized by acts of Congress and Congress continues to support the remaining war, Afghanistan. Seems to me the accountability is pretty clear here. Ricks' seems to think that conscription would somehow generate more opposition to the war which would force policymakers to change policy. That might be true, but it hasn't historically been the case, as Ken's pointed out.

The source for his evidence is Ken's post, which as I noted above, is usually anecdotal and has an obvious bias against the mental and ethical capacities of political decision-makers.

Entropy does make an alternative suggestion for the problem(s) identified in Ricks' article:


If the problem is to prevent the US from engaging in large, long wars of choice, then the answer, it seems to me, is not conscription, but an overall reduction in the active duty end-strength for both the Army and Air Force.

Later on, Entropy does object to my evidence of the positive outcomes of conscription (especially in the 1940 - 1973 era):


You've established nothing. You repeatedly asserted a connection and then refused to substantiate it. When specifically challenged, you demurred and said you were only pointing out "that these things were better during the most recent draft period than after it with the all-volunteer force." Which is to say that you admited there is nothing to support the connection you say you established!

I then pointed him to my multiple posts where I laid out my arguments for the positive benefits of conscription. Most of his comments were focused on objections to my arguments on the basis of my conclusions or a perceived lack of evidence. He did not, however, provide much in the of counter-evidence.

Then we come to our dialogue, which I don't need to quote for you. So I disagree with you that the other posters provided a substantial "weight of evidence" against my position.

[Fuchs]

Fuchs argues that conscription is worse for the general welfare of a soldier than a volunteer force.

That was not my point. "General welfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause)" is as a term linked to a country, not an individual.

Conscription is more expensive (monetary costs + human costs) than a volunteer army and thus suboptimal from the national point of view (,too).

[wm]

American Pride has been trying to make an argument from analogy to carry his point that a draft would be good today.

To recap AP's argument: A draft in 1940-73 was good for America becase it revitalized the American economy during that period. Therefore, a draft in 2012 will be good for today's American economy.

What he has not shown is how today's American economy is relevantly similar tothat of the period 1940-1973, which he holds up as the basis for his undemonstrated analogy.

I have asserted that the 1940-73 time frame is sui generis. I find especially interesting the fact that American Pride has not tried to rebut that claim.

[AmericanPride]

Conscription is more expensive (monetary costs + human costs) than a volunteer army and thus suboptimal from the national point of view (,too).

This is simply not true for the United States. First, of the top twenty countries by active-duty end-strength, 13 exceed the United States in per 1,000 capita. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops) These countries are North Korea, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Vietnam, Myanmar, France, Syria, Italy, Taiwan, and Colombia. None of them surpass the United States in GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29) or military expenditures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures) per capita. Of those 13 countries, 11 have conscription (North Korea, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Vietnam, Myanmar, Syria, Taiwan, Colombia). Now, the objection here would be that the US spends more per capita (even over conscript forces) because of its technological advancements. This argument also implies that these technologies are cost effective and produce a measurable increase in US military effectiveness. But this is not true either. This article (http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/articles/31/attachments/Heintz%20military%20assets%20and%20public%20invest ment.pdf) and this article (http://costsofwar.org/sites/default/files/articles/26/attachments/Garrett-Peltier%20%20Jobs.pdf) lay out how defense spending is not efficient at all. Moreover, this is made worse by the inefficiencies of the US national security political economy (http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/01/02.pdf) that is leading to a decline in military readiness despite increased spending. And lastly, we can throw in the three to eight trillion dollar bill for the GWoT. We can also look at the mixed US track record in favorably and definitively terminating conflicts since 1973. So, not only is US spending actually more inefficient than existing conscript forces, the perceived increase in combat power gained by technology has not improved US military effectiveness or American security by any substantial amount.

In contrast, we can examine US economic (http://articles.boston.com/2009-09-10/ae/29265095_1_gi-bill-higher-education-authors) and military performance when the draft was in place from 1940 - 1973. I pointed out earlier that the mass mobilization and expanded benefits allowed for a full third of the US population during that time access to economic benefits. And the use of those benefits had a direct, measurable, and substantial impact on 'general welfare' of the US, including education, technological advancement, infrastructure, job growth, tax revenues, and civil rights.

[Entropy]

AmericanPride,


Yes, yes, I've seen it too, which is why the source I cited listed alcohol related deaths as opposed to alcohol consumption. I guess we could add that Southerners can't hold their beer as well northerners to the list of stereotypes.

Here's the thing. The number of alcohol related deaths does not tell us who likes beer and who doesn't. It tells us the number of alcohol-related deaths. The two are not directly related, nor can it be claimed that alcohol-related deaths are a proxy indicator for liking beer without demonstrating a link between the two. Therefore, citing alcohol-related deaths is not evidence the south "likes beer." That's why I specifically cited beer consumption because people who like beer consume beer; hence that is a valid indicator to use when determining who does and doesn't like beer.

Now, this is a side point and whether or not the south likes beer is irrelevant to a discussion on conscription. However, I bring this up as emblematic of the kind of evidence supporting your arguments throughout this thread. My complaint is that you make sweeping claims and then can't or won't support them. You simply assert they are true or relevant.

Another example is your use of the GI Bill as evidence that conscription produces better economic outcomes than the AVF. The problem here is that the GI Bill is not tied to conscription, nor is it a required element of conscription. Let's say, for example, that we take away the GI Bill and the economic benefits of the GI Bill. If that happens, then all the economic benefits you ascribe to conscription that are actually produced by the GI Bill go away. Or, alternatively, let's say we give everyone in America the GI Bill - same result.

Secondly, WWII drafted a lot of people for a short amount of time and then dumped most of them back into the regular economy. You should not expect, for example, to see the same results by keeping a WWII sized conscript force as a continuous measure. In that case conscription, in most cases, hurts the economy because military service is not productive and so that labor would be more productive in the economy. Keeping several million people out of the productive elements of the economy on an indefinite basis is not going to produce the benefits you've described.

Third, this bears highlighting again:


There's a clear, documented relationship between the US draft 1940 - 1973 and American prosperity in that era.

There is also a clear, documented relationship between global warming and pirates. Pointing out correlations is not proof or evidence of anything.

As to the post-war boom, there are many more factors - factors actually shown as causal - that do relate to and explain American prosperity in that era. Conscription isn't one of them.

Finally, I think this discussion, for me, has about run its course. It seems pretty clear that we have very different ideas of what constitutes cause and effect and what is merely coincidental. Readers can decide for themselves who makes the better argument.

In closing, I'll just reiterate my position on conscription:

Simply, it's this: I think conscription is only justified by military necessity. I think conscription as a tool for social or economic engineering is dangerous and foolish.

The advocates for conscription in this thread and Tom Ricks judiciously avoid discussing military necessity because it's obvious that military forces rarely need conscription to maintain adequate manpower. So, unable to justify conscription in terms of military necessity, advocates come up with a host of alternative reasons why conscription is good or necessary. Unfortunately for them, the reasons are not well supported historically or academically.

In addition to avoiding arguments about military necessity, advocates for conscription also tend to avoid the negative aspects of conscription and the obvious problems with implementation. Conscription doesn't work very well if the military is small compared to the general population. There will always be volunteers so the number of actual conscripts is not likely to be large. If there are enough volunteers then conscripts aren't needed at all. What should be done then?

Conscription makes a lot more sense for a large military that can't get enough recruits from volunteers. To get a lot of the effects advocates describe, we would need to increase the end-strength of the military significantly, reduce compensation and benefits to discourage volunteers, and make up the difference with conscripts. It could be done but I fail to see why we need a large military to begin with - the active force we have now is already too big, IMO. Nor do I see any net benefit to creating a large force simply to justify conscription for the purposes of social engineering.

[Entropy]

Lastly, a large number of Ken's comments are anecdotal:


Oh, the irony. :D

[AmericanPride]

To recap AP's argument: A draft in 1940-73 was good for America becase it revitalized the American economy during that period. Therefore, a draft in 2012 will be good for today's American economy.

Potentially. My first aim is to destroy the myths that conscript forces are inherently less cost effective and less capable in definitively and favorably ending conflict than all-volunteer forces. While the experience of other countries may be up for debate, I think it is very clear that these myths have no basis in reality for the US.


I have asserted that the 1940-73 time frame is sui generis. I find especially interesting the fact that American Pride has not tried to rebut that claim.

I have not intentionally over-looked your claim, though I wonder on what basis you claim the whole "1940 - 73" time to be sui generis. There are significant differences in today's economy compared to the most recent draft era, a number of which are: increased financialization of the economy, higher concentrations of wealth in the upper echelons of society, and extremely low effective tax rates for the wealthy and corporations (who, as I noted, also have more of society's wealth). These may or may not be relevant to the effects of mass mobilization,though I think putting the 16.7% of youth that are unemployed to work (even if they're just mowing laws in the brigade footprint), is better than having that labor idle.

[Fuchs]

@AmericanPride:

I am 100% confident that you do not get anything of what I wrote here. I advise to go back to my first post and read it real slow - twice.

[AmericanPride]

@AmericanPride:

I am 100% confident that you do not get anything of what I wrote here. I advise to go back to my first post and read it real slow - twice.

You claimed that an all-volunteer force is inherently more cost effective than a conscription force. In the case of the United States, I have demonstrated that to be false. So, instead of continually referring back to your original post, I recommend that you refute the argument and evidence I have laid out. Thanks.

[AmericanPride]

Another example is your use of the GI Bill as evidence that conscription produces better economic outcomes than the AVF. The problem here is that the GI Bill is not tied to conscription, nor is it a required element of conscription. Let's say, for example, that we take away the GI Bill and the economic benefits of the GI Bill. If that happens, then all the economic benefits you ascribe to conscription that are actually produced by the GI Bill go away. Or, alternatively, let's say we give everyone in America the GI Bill - same result.

Those are viable alternatives which have taken you way too long to bring up. So, as we can see here, the most effective solution may not be the re-institution of the draft, but government programs directed at the economic well-being of the middle class, which would bring us to the large body of evidence that both a government economic policy and a robust middle class are good for the health of a country. I have not claimed the draft to be the exclusive solution for the problems identified in this thread.


Secondly, WWII drafted a lot of people for a short amount of time and then dumped most of them back into the regular economy. You should not expect, for example, to see the same results by keeping a WWII sized conscript force as a continuous measure.

The draft period did not end with the end of WW2. It ended in 1973.



As to the post-war boom, there are many more factors - factors actually shown as causal - that do relate to and explain American prosperity in that era.

The expansive access to government economic benefits provided to a majority of the population through a sustained period of time through conscription is one of them.


The advocates for conscription in this thread and Tom Ricks judiciously avoid discussing military necessity because it's obvious that military forces rarely need conscription to maintain adequate manpower.

Military necessity was never a point of contention, so I do not see why you bring it up now as evidence against the intentions of your opponents.


In addition to avoiding arguments about military necessity, advocates for conscription also tend to avoid the negative aspects of conscription and the obvious problems with implementation.

Again, that conscription has consequences of its own was never a point of contention.

Take care.

[Fuchs]

Fuchs

Conscription is more expensive (monetary costs + human costs) than a volunteer army and thus suboptimal from the national point of view (,too).

AmericanPride

(...)in GDP or military expenditures per capita(...)defense spending(...)increased spending

Furthermore, a discussion of a specific choice does not allow global developments to be taken as an argument as if there was a proved causal relationship.

Now try to understand. I did neither write about individual soldiers nor only about money. I wrote about general welfare - the country's general well-being.

I do harm to you when I force you to do something disgusting by pointing a gun at you. Such an action would not have any fiscal impact or GDP effect. Now imagine I'd do it to four million Americans every year. Something really, really disgusting. Four million times a year.
The general welfare of the U.S. would suffer because I would cause human costs.


Not monetarised enough?
Monetarise "national security" well first, or else the whole conscription thing lacks any revenue side!

[AmericanPride]

I did neither write about individual soldiers nor only about money. I wrote about general welfare - the country's general well-being.

I do harm to you when I force you to do something disgusting by pointing a gun at you. Such an action would not have any fiscal impact or GDP effect. Now imagine I'd do it to four million Americans every year. Something really, really disgusting. Four million times a year.
The general welfare of the U.S. would suffer because I would cause human costs.


Not monetarised enough?
Monetarise "national security" well first, or else the whole conscription thing lacks any revenue side!

Americans are already conscripted for jury duty, education (up to the 12th grade), and to a smaller extent, community and charitable work through the school and prison systems. This is repeated every year to tens of millions of Americans. What are the "human costs" and how do we measure it? What are the "disgusting" "human costs" of military conscription and how do you measure it?

[Fuchs]

Irrelevant.

I do not discuss the price of butter when I decide to buy a salami or not. Just stay on topic.

And I already showed that I'm not the first to monetarise the human costs, for the whole basis of conscription requires a "pro" side - National Security- which is not monetarised either.
On top of that, my first post explains enough to show that monetarising the human costs is not necessary for a conclusion.

Just read it again till you get what I meant, for I was really as clear as I could.

[AmericanPride]

Irrelevant.

I do not discuss the price of butter when I decide to buy a salami or not. Just stay on topic.

And I already showed that I'm not the first to monetarise the human costs, for the whole basis of conscription requires a "pro" side - National Security- which is not monetarised either.
On top of that, my first post explains enough to show that monetarising the human costs is not necessary for a conclusion.

Just read it again till you get what I meant, for I was really as clear as I could.

OK. Sure. Whatever. The "keep-reading-what-I-stated-because-it-was-clear-and-self-evident-until-you-agree-with-me" line is not an argument. Thanks for playing though!

[Fuchs]

Sure it's no argument. Why should I keep providing new ones before you understand my original, central argument?

Arguments are meant to be weighed against each other. Makes no sense to dust off the scale before you know what to put on it.

[Steve Blair]

I happen to think Ricks is a moron when it comes to the application of historical analysis. And this :rolleyes: does not gain you any traction.

You have clearly made up your mind on this issue. You also clearly have assembled propositions that support your position. When challenged, you simply assert that your position is correct and that others must supply information to prove that you're wrong. Regarding that 8.5% figure from the Civil War (which appears to be high...unless you count those who paid NOT to be drafted as having been drafted), you have posted nothing that indicates that an overall 8.5% manpower increase over a two-year period had a substantial impact, You simply insist that it must be so.

I haven't made an exhaustive study of all Union regimental returns, but there are some that I have fair experience with. California, to name one example, did not make use of conscripts, and their forces provided the majority of Frontier garrison troops west of Colorado. A recent history of the Army of the Tennessee makes little mention of draftees in the ranks of those regiments. The article I linked to earlier also indicates that impact in terms of numbers in Wisconsin from conscription was also low. Volunteerism was also stimulated by the use of bounties at the state level, and there were constant problems with "bounty-jumping" and substitute fraud as well. I'd be interested to know how many of those supposed 8.5% actually served in the ranks for any period of time and how many went over the hill soon after reporting.

[Ken White]

You claimed that an all-volunteer force is inherently more cost effective than a conscription force. In the case of the United States, I have demonstrated that to be false. So, instead of continually referring back to your original post, I recommend that you refute the argument and evidence I have laid out. Thanks.It appears to me that the second sentence could more correctly read "In my opinion I have demonstrated that to be false" -- The opinions, numbers, anecdotes, citations, quotes and so forth of others not withstanding... :D

You guys have fun. Carl has it right, it's not going to happen so no worries.

P.S.

With respect to my commenting on Rick's credibility, FYI it was not done to lend credence to an opposing view, it was an aside merely to express distaste for Mr. Ricks and his ilk. There are few things more dangerous (or amusing / annoying in turns) than a passable intellect imbued with overweening self-righteousness and an, umm, enhanced view of own knowledge and worth. They are fun to poke at however... :eek:

[AmericanPride]

You have clearly made up your mind on this issue.

How is that any different from anyone else in this thread?


You also clearly have assembled propositions that support your position.

Again, how is that any different from anyone else in this thread? And, I would add, assembling favorable propositions for one's own argument is kind of essential to formulating an idea...


When challenged, you simply assert that your position is correct and that others must supply information to prove that you're wrong.

That is incorrect. I have provided a number of citations regarding my claims. There has been much in the way of counter-argument against my positions, but light in regards to counter-evidence; you, Entropy, and wm are the only ones to provide citations of some of your claims. And when wm and Entropy challenged my claims about comparing the 1940-1973 draft period to post-1973, I refined my argument and submitted my evidence.

So, in reality, the problem is that I am arguing against the general consensus, which is fine, but I take issue with that you expect a higher standard of proof for my argument. I don't see how your comment is not applicable to the majority of posters in this thread and therefore just as condemning of their propositions.


I haven't made an exhaustive study of all Union regimental returns, but there are some that I have fair experience with. California, to name one example, did not make use of conscripts, and their forces provided the majority of Frontier garrison troops west of Colorado. A recent history of the Army of the Tennessee makes little mention of draftees in the ranks of those regiments. The article I linked to earlier also indicates that impact in terms of numbers in Wisconsin from conscription was also low. Volunteerism was also stimulated by the use of bounties at the state level, and there were constant problems with "bounty-jumping" and substitute fraud as well. I'd be interested to know how many of those supposed 8.5% actually served in the ranks for any period of time and how many went over the hill soon after reporting.

As I have stated before, this information piques my curiosity, and it would be interesting to discover just how far that 8.5% really went; though, quite frankly, whether or not conscription played a major role in the Civil War is separate from whether or not conscription has positive effects when enacted.

[AmericanPride]

The opinions, numbers, anecdotes, citations, quotes and so forth of others not withstanding... :D

Which "opinions, numbers, anecdotes, citations, quotes, and so forth"? I have addressed every relevant claim in turn. The two most compelling arguments are from Entropy, who argued that conscription may not be a practical solution to today's problems, and wm, who argued that conscription today may not provide the same benefits as it did during 1940 - 1973. I also agreed with Entropy that conscription is not necessarily the only or best solution for identified problems, and with wm that there are substantial differences between the 1940-73 economy and today's economy that may potentially affect benefits gained from conscription. Either way, that still leaves open the problems and costs of today's all-volunteer force (which you agreed is broken) and the prosperity gained from the use of conscription from 1940-1973.

[Steve Blair]

As I have stated before, this information piques my curiosity, and it would be interesting to discover just how far that 8.5% really went; though, quite frankly, whether or not conscription played a major role in the Civil War is separate from whether or not conscription has positive effects when enacted.

You have stated several times (here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=135138&postcount=9) "quite well"; here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=135178&postcount=24) "8.5% reduction in force would have been quite significant" and later linking the outcome of the Civil War to conscription; and then here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=135198&postcount=38) you state that "almost a tenth of all soldiers in the Union Army were draftees" without digging into the background which actually suggests (clearly states in some cases like Wisconsin) that the percentage who actually allowed themselves to be conscripted may have been lower...and I haven't seen any clear linkage indicating that those who were drafted served in any real capacity. And in some cases (California being one) there were no conscripts in their regiments.

You have provided no real citations to back up your Civil War claims. And your claims regarding its benefits to the overall war effort are likewise not supported aside from a random statistic. I think Ken has the right idea...:rolleyes:

[wm]

I have not intentionally over-looked your claim, though I wonder on what basis you claim the whole "1940 - 73" time to be sui generis. There are significant differences in today's economy compared to the most recent draft era, a number of which are: increased financialization of the economy, higher concentrations of wealth in the upper echelons of society, and extremely low effective tax rates for the wealthy and corporations (who, as I noted, also have more of society's wealth). These may or may not be relevant to the effects of mass mobilization,though I think putting the 16.7% of youth that are unemployed to work (even if they're just mowing laws in the brigade footprint), is better than having that labor idle.

You have hoisted yourself by your own petard, refuting your own argument from analogy. Rather than showing why the 1940-73 period is not sui generis or, in other words, is similar to the current time, the above quotation by you points out that the economy of today is relevantly dissimilar from the economy that you alleged received such a boost from conscription between 1940 and 1973.

Not that I feel any real need to justify my claim regarding the uniqueness of 1940-73 but as a starting point I will submit that between 1941 and 1945, the US was engaged in a war that was fought on both sides of its ocean borders (Asia and Europe/MENA) with countries boosting armies that were peer competitors of, or better than, any other army in the world at the time. I think the German and Japanese armed forces were substantially better trained and equipped than the US Army until such time as they were attrited by the generally much-lower-tech, mass-produced materiel coming from the "Arsenal of Freedom" that was protected from attack by two major oceans.

By the way, I can tell you from experience as a soldier on casual duty status while awaiting orders, "mowing lawns in the brigade footprint" is far from meaningfiul employment. I suspect it would cause more harm than good to put a number of disaffected, because unemployed, youth to such work. Let's talk about diluting the the fighting strength, as the brigade has to use its troops to watch over the under-employed youth who are acting out in the brigade cantonment area. But I suspect my experience as a troop during those golden years of the draft are just anecdotes to be discounted, as are my subsequent experiences as an officer while the Army moved from a mixed force through VOLAR to the AVF (or all vounteer Army as we called it when I retired).

[AmericanPride]

You have hoisted yourself by your own petard, refuting your own argument from analogy. Rather than showing why the 1940-73 period is not sui generis or, in other words, is similar to the current time, the above quotation by you points out that the economy of today is relevantly dissimilar from the economy that you alleged received such a boost from conscription between 1940 and 1973.

No -- I clearly stated that while there are differences, neither you or I have established to what extent they are relevant. According to your strict interpretation, we might as well discard all of history as a useful tool in discussing policy and it's consequences since history never literally repeats itself. :rolleyes: I'm open to a discussion about those economic factors I named (and others if you have them) since I'm not wholly convinced they are irrelevant.


Not that I feel any real need to justify my claim regarding the uniqueness of 1940-73 but as a starting point I will submit that between 1941 and 1945, the US was engaged in a war that was fought on both sides of its ocean borders (Asia and Europe/MENA) with countries boosting armies that were peer competitors of, or better than, any other army in the world at the time. I think the German and Japanese armed forces were substantially better trained and equipped than the US Army until such time as they were attrited by the generally much-lower-tech, mass-produced materiel coming from the "Arsenal of Freedom" that was protected from attack by two major oceans.

While this is factually true, it doesn't contradict or refute the positive economic outcomes gained from mobilizing millions of men between 1940 and 1973. US spending in the GWoT exceeded that of WW2, and faces more numerous disparate threats that require a large, flexible force to manage. What was relevantly unique about WW2 was the scale of destructive power unleashed, but, as you stated, this had no direct impact on the US.


By the way, I can tell you from experience as a soldier on casual duty status while awaiting orders, "mowing lawns in the brigade footprint" is far from meaningfiul employment. I suspect it would cause more harm than good to put a number of disaffected, because unemployed, youth to such work. Let's talk about diluting the the fighting strength, as the brigade has to use its troops to watch over the under-employed youth who are acting out in the brigade cantonment area. But I suspect my experience as a troop during those golden years of the draft are just anecdotes to be discounted, as are my subsequent experiences as an officer while the Army moved from a mixed force through VOLAR to the AVF (or all vounteer Army as we called it when I retired).

I agree with you that there is much time wasting in garrison. The point is that an 18 year old mowing lawns is at least making a paycheck and putting his disposable wages back into the economy. This is not true for the 16.7% of unemployed youth for whom jobs simply do not exist. As for your personal experiences, they're great. But yours, like mine I described elsewhere on this site, are not established to be the norm by virtue of us experiencing them.

[AmericanPride]

. I think Ken has the right idea...:rolleyes:

Ok. Take care!

[Ken White]

Which "opinions, numbers, anecdotes, citations, quotes, and so forth"? I have addressed every relevant claim in turn. The two most compelling arguments are from Entropy, who argued that conscription may not be a practical solution to today's problems, and wm, who argued that conscription today may not provide the same benefits as it did during 1940 - 1973....May I suggest that those points were also made by others.

For possible use in other discussions, you might consider that their comments while similar to others were different in that they made an effort to respond to you in kind and inparallel, i.e. with metrics and citations and this resonated with you (and kudos to both of them for that). As did Fuchs and Steve Blair (though their good efforts were not parallel to yours) but some of us did not bother to do that -- I for one am far too lazy to marshal all that for a discussion board in addressing an esoteric topic unless pressed. I'm also too old to change. Mea Culpa.. :o

Obviously, your inclination is toward the academic approach and that is laudable. However, as I'm sure you know, not everyone is so inclined and while I do not suggest you change your approach, I suggest that semi automatic rejection of ideas or concepts not documented in academic style may deprive you of some useful thoughts. As I convinced a RAND researcher some years ago, anecdotal evidence is still evidence and it can often be more correct or appropriate than poorly chosen metrics. Correlation does not imply causation... ;)

Just a thought. Enjoyed the discussion. :cool:

[davidbfpo]

Looking for some information I came across this British comedian's viewpoint, from 2008 (conscription is not an issue in the UK):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua1VQZC8X9c

The information I sought was who today had military conscription and in a quick search there is this 2008 map:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conscription_map_of_the_world.svg

[davidbfpo]

I have followed the arguments presented here, which all apply to the American use of an AVF.

So may I add a couple of points:

1. If an economic impact is sought, especially with youth unemployment, there are far better and probably cheaper, less dangerous options.

2. If the USA continues to engage in combat and operations near combat is there not a danger that conscripts will be deployed alongside non-conscript, professional allies, for example whose skill level will exceed theirs?

3. In the Western world and in parts of the developing world the ethos and practice of professionalism has spread across many occupations. For the USA to argue a part-professional, part conscript military deploying outside the USA could invite ridicule.

I shall now retreat to my "bunker".:wry:

[wm]

No -- I clearly stated that while there are differences, neither you or I have established to what extent they are relevant.
You said that the differences "may or may not be relevant," which is a tautology. Using a disjunction with two contradictory terms as its disjuncts provides no real information content. It is, instead, rather obfuscatory, does not really further understanding, and does not advance the search for truth.

I think that the relevance of the differences you described, viz., "increased financialization of the economy, higher concentrations of wealth in the upper echelons of society, and extremely low effective tax rates for the wealthy and corporations" is rather patently obvious. The impacts of dumping a rather large pool of mostly semi-skilled laborers who are more used to breaking things than to building them (which is at bottom what a demobilized military force is with regard to the civilian economy--whether in 1945 or in 2012) will be significantly different in a service-based economy (2012) than in a industrial/product-based economy (1940-1973). Service-based economies require skills that are not those normally connected with "servicing targets," as an euphemism for combat goes. They include people skills and salesmanship skills, the kinds of things currently identified as lacking in the force that needs to "win friends and influence people" to counter an insurgency successfully.

By the way, your exposition to date has not made clear how a large influx of laborers will realign the "effective tax rates for the wealthy and corporations" or draw "wealth from the upper echelons of society." Changing tax rates requires legislation and realigning wealth requires either a willingness on the part of the wealthy to part with their money or legislation to force income redistribution (for example, a simple graduated income tax system with no exemptions whatsoever).

According to your strict interpretation, we might as well discard all of history as a useful tool in discussing policy and it's consequences since history never literally repeats itself. :rolleyes: I'm open to a discussion about those economic factors I named (and others if you have them) since I'm not wholly convinced they are irrelevant.


As I trust my second paragraph, supra., demonstrates, I have not applied a strict definition to determine relevance. I also have not played fast and loose with statistics, based on questionable assumptions, that amount to over-generalizations. I have tried to ensure that I use the amount of precision appropriate to the subject matter at hand.

Even though my avatar is of Don Quixote, I have decided to stop tilting at this windmill. This will be my last response to your mutating arguments for what seems to me to be a dogmatic, ill-founded position.

[AmericanPride]

If an economic impact is sought, especially with youth unemployment, there are far better and probably cheaper, less dangerous options.

I agree. I never claimed conscription to be the only or most effective method in addressing the economic problems faced by this country. You probably know as much as I do that there is much stronger resistance in the US than the UK to government intervention in the economy despite the large body of evidence suggesting that measured policy is actually quite effective (and with the ironic emphasis on massive government spending in defense). Such a conversation would be as much a critique of unregulated capitalism as of the problems and inefficiencies of the all-volunteer force identified earlier in this thread. How these two ideas interact would be an interesting conversation.


If the USA continues to engage in combat and operations near combat is there not a danger that conscripts will be deployed alongside non-conscript, professional allies, for example whose skill level will exceed theirs?

Indeed. This effect, and it's potential impact on the definitive and favorable termination of a conflict, has not been previously discussed.


. In the Western world and in parts of the developing world the ethos and practice of professionalism has spread across many occupations. For the USA to argue a part-professional, part conscript military deploying outside the USA could invite ridicule.

I suppose this depends on the substance, extent, and relevance of current ridicule of the US, its policies, its military forces, and their conduct and capabilities.



Even though my avatar is of Don Quixote, I have decided to stop tilting at this windmill. This will be my last response to your mutating arguments for what seems to me to be a dogmatic, ill-founded position.

Ok, see ya!

[ganulv]

1. If an economic impact is sought, especially with youth unemployment, there are far better and probably cheaper, less dangerous options.

[…]

3. In the Western world and in parts of the developing world the ethos and practice of professionalism has spread across many occupations.

There does seem to me to be a certain "it should work well enough" attitude -- as opposed to shooting for "it should work as well as possible" -- inherent in the idea that conscription will both resolve labor woes and provide for military personnel needs.