End the All-Volunteer Force

[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. 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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

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.

[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]

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).

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

(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... ).

[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 than the rest of the country. Six of the top ten states were in the South. And yes, beer, fishing, and Nascar 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 (and then West). Rural areas also have fewer job opportunities.

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

Yup.

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?

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 being the returns that may have been gained had the funds been invested elsewhere.

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.