Tom Ricks says we should end the all-volunteer force.
Printable View
Tom Ricks says we should end the all-volunteer force.
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:Quote:
The drawbacks of the all-volunteer force are not military, but political and ethical.
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.Quote:
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.
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:Quote:
A draft would be good for our nation and ultimately for our military.
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?
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.Quote:
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
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.
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:
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.Quote:
"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken
End strength won't expand until we fix the gross budget irregularities and waste in the un-auditable Defense Department's spending practices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rose
Ricks' point is that that system isn't working out very effectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gute
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).
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.
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.
I apologize for my garbled response and the fact I don't know how to respond to quotes.
That's Ricks' point.Quote:
Originally Posted by gute
Quote:
Originally Posted by gute
Quote:
Originally Posted by gute
How would you know if you didn't serve during the Civil War (or did you?)? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by gute
To what effect?Quote:
Originally Posted by gute
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.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...Quote:
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.
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.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.Quote:
End strength won't expand until we fix the gross budget irregularities and waste in the un-auditable Defense Department's spending practices.
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:Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Ricks' point is that that system isn't working out very effectively.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
It worked out quite well in the Civil War and the World Wars.
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:Quote:
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.
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:
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:
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...Is it? I wonder. Didn't happen during either Korea or Viet Nam...Quote:
That's Ricks' point.
His quoting of history is at least as good as thine... :DQuote:
How would you know if you didn't serve during the Civil War (or did you?)?
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.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... ;)Quote:
To what effect?
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.Quote:
End strength won't expand until we fix the gross budget irregularities and waste in the un-auditable Defense Department's spending practices.Quote:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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. According to the Joint Chiefs Chairman:
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.Quote:
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.
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.
That's one outcome of conscription policy...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.Quote:
The US was engaged in less conflict (and at less cost per conflict!) with conscription than without.
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.Quote:
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.
Ok, you imply the cause is conscription. Please explain how those wars would have been more successfully prosecuted with a conscript military.Quote:
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.
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?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropy
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...)Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropy
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.Quote:
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.
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropy
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.Quote:
The most recent draft era (1940 - 1973) was no more damaging to the United States than the last decade of conflict (2001 - present)
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.
Quote:
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropy
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%. 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).
My bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropy
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
How does this compare to the fact that war has now become an exclusively middle class burden, both in service and in financing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wm
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wm
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
This has more to do with the financialization of the US economy and the movement of manufacturing and other labor-intensive jobs overseas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
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 outpaced inflation since 1985 (and only after US wages started to stagnate) because of increased administrative costs. The education problems in this country were not caused by conscription.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
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).
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.
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, 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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
An interesting side-note is that next to young adults, a great percentage of student debt is held by seniors, 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).Quote:
Originally Posted by van
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:
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.Quote:
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)
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."
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.
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.
Oh, Van, one last note: aside from the clear economic advantages gained from health-care reform, 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, last year, making it clear that health and education reform are both essential to maintaining and improving military readiness.
I'm not really concerned about my reputation on a fairly anonymous online message board.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
That's an interesting finding, and demonstrates the utility of the draft in more than simply directly fulfilling manpower requirements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Blair
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).