End the All-Volunteer Force

[carl]

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

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

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

[AmericanPride]

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

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

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

This report concludes that the majority of military recruits originate from middle income neighborhoods. Barriers to entry (mostly education and criminal records) preclude many of the underclass, while the upper class have better things to do with their time (and lives). This does not mean that the middle class are any more patriotic or willing to serve -- it just means, they are the only ones eligible. This is problematic because (1) the middle class is shrinking while (2) the middle class also bears the greatest relative tax burden as the upper class and corporations have numerous tax practices available to reduce their effective rate. This is on top of stagnating wages since the late 1970s and wildly inflated costs in education, health-care, and food and fuel prices. This occurred simultaneously with the explosion of wealth and assets held by the upper 1 - 5% and a gradual decline in their top tax rate (from 90+% in the 1940s to theoretically 35% today).

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

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

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

[carl]

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

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

This report concludes that the majority of military recruits originate from middle income neighborhoods. Barriers to entry (mostly education and criminal records) preclude many of the underclass, while the upper class have better things to do with their time (and lives). This does not mean that the middle class are any more patriotic or willing to serve -- it just means, they are the only ones eligible.

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

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

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

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

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

[Ken White]

Ken, and the general consensus it seems, assigns this problem to outdated personnel and training systems, and various Congressional policies; though, at the same time, it is pointed out that Congress has also dramatically increased the amount of money spent on the services, with a significant portion invested in training, personnel, and acquisition.

Obfuscation will get you no where

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

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

In order, look at the competence of any of the British Commonwealth all volunteer forces over the years to include in wars and assess their performance . In particular, assess their performance in the early stages of wars and then again later after they resorted to conscription. Do not talk of 'world' norms then cite US counterfactuals -- that's reobfuscating...

Also, trying to equate societal and political changes worldwide and the effects those have on events with the presence or absence of conscription is a little disingenuous.. As for Congress -- is that current shortfall a result of a lack of conscription or of a political climate that discourages truly competent persons from running all too often; is their seeming loss of power actual or perceived and, if real (which I doubt -- abdication is abandonment, not loss...) are other factors at play in that?

With conscription, more people would be directly involved in foreign policy process of the country. That would place conflict as a primary voter issue right next to jobs and social programs, which translates into greater pressure on the political parties (first at the local level) to address whatever issue arises. During an election year, this is accomplished through the primaries, and for the House, this occurs every other year. It may not have prevented the Iraq War, but it would have significantly influenced Congressional oversight and interest in its methods and outcomes (of course I'm pressuming that Congressional oversight has a net positive effect...)

History does not validate much of that; while it is theoretically correct, in actuality back in the day, few voters got exercised about much in things military. They affected defense, military and foreign policy little if at all. Truman went to Korea with out even asking Congress -- at least G. W. Bush asked; Johnson escalated Viet Nam farbeyond any common sense measure and neith the Voters or Congress made much fuss -- until the Draft started biting kids who had never been told what to do in their lives before they hit the magic age.

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

Heh. Correlation does not imply causation, much less prove it...

It's relevant to the extent that there is no correlation between maintaining an all-volunteer force and the general welfare or security of the country

...does it??? You're reaching, there.

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

Probably because Congress has made sure that almost half the nation pays no income taxes and because the academically endowed eschew dirty, relatively thankless work as beneath them.

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

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

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

[selil]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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