End the All-Volunteer Force

[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.

[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.

[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.

[slapout9]

It's NASCAR not Nascar! That's Important

[Ken White]

The British military record is no more spectacular than any other European power... I'm not concerned about small unit performance as I am with definitive and favorable terminations of conflict.

Without small unit performance there will be no definitive terminations of conflict. As for favorable, that too often lie in the realm of the Politicians -- and conscription won't fix that.

More pointedly, did you miss the word Commonwealth in there?

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

There's a clear documented relationship between government policies, societal norms and prosperity in that era. The relationship of conscription is that it existed, no more.

There's also a clear relationship between present US defense spending with the all-volunteer force and the political and economic consequences of military policy.

I'm not at all sure it 's clear but what is emphatically clear is that Congress not only has abrogated its responsibility with respect to the Armed Forces and wars but to virtually all its fiscal responsibilities as well. Conscription won't fix that and, based on the historical record is highly unlikely to induce broader citizen involvement.

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

Said separation dearly loved by the governing classes who have tacitly encouraged that lack of involvement for years -- and, again, conscription won't change that...

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

What? That we can change spoiled brats by forcing them to do something they don't want to do? Good luck with that.

Again I'll point out that this is not about fixing the force or even the political milieu -- it's about sociological tinkering and determining what's 'best' for the masses by self appointed pseudo elites. Don't join that crowd, you can do better...

Socialism is the about the social ownership of the means production, which has nothing to do with conscription.

Oh? Have you not suggested that conscripts could perform 'other public services?' Is that not social ownership of a means of production?

Socialism is also a political philosophy and it is noted for an elite directing things be done as they desire for the' common good' (as THEY see it) -- regrettably, the common folk generally get little say in how that will work .

Governments of all kinds, most of them not socialist, have used conscription at one point or another.

As has this one which is more Socialist than many...

Nice gimmick though.

Not a gimmick as you well know; the charge was that conscription was like socialistic dreams. That is accurate. Like socialism which has never really worked (because people are involved; that and the right persons have never been in charge...), conscription works well for producing mass, cannon fodder Armies -- and is good for little else -- and to tout it as a panacea is living in a dream world. Been there, done that -- it works but poorly and it's still involuntary servitude and it still has remarkably little effect on governance and adventurism.

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

That's true and you and I can probably agree that the Army is broken and truly in need of a major overhaul. We would probably agree on many things and disagree on some -- but on conscription as a cure, we'll have to disagree . Implement and it will make little to no difference, it will as I and others have tried to point out, make some things worse -- not much, admittedly but worse of any degree is not better...

Note also that American society elects those Congroids who spend trillions of dollars on a lot of really dumb stuff other than idiotic and unnecessary wars and who eschew responsibility for ANY hard decisions to curtail or cope with that spending -- or the wars.

So yes, it is the military, not American society which the military serves, that needs fixing.

We can disagree on that. The AVF like every other Army, conscript or not, is a reflection of the society from which it comes. If you don't like an Army look at its roots -- that's where your problems will lie. Always.

[AmericanPride]

It's NASCAR not Nascar! That's Important

Aw shucks! I always screw that one up!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've pointed it out here and here. This article provides a good overview.

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

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

[ganulv]

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

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

[AmericanPride]

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

I agree, but with the smaller all-volunteer force, there are not nearly as many demobilized soldiers because the force is smaller and many remain in the service as careerists. Just as the draft provides a massive manpower boost to the armed forces, when coupled with generous veterans' programs, it can also lead to significant economic returns. I cited this article earlier:

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

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

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

I agree, but this benefit is not as great as the opportunity cost of this action:

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

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

The article seriously calls into question the efficacy of small wars that have little or unfavorable political outcomes but with extremely high price tags. This other article addresses the same problem:

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

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

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

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