Is Public Will at odds with Public Sacrifice?

[Rob Thornton]

This morning on the Earlybird I saw a WSJ article where the CSA announced plans to look at acceleration of adding the additional troops to meet the objective of 2 years at home station for every one year deployed. There is concern that the 15 month deployments may cause additional attrition of experience. Mentioned was the usual prescritpion of enlistment/re-enlistment bonuses and promotions to support expansion.

Several other articles recently have caught my attention since I've been back. Some were on who serves, who wants to serve, who does not want to serve, why, etc (one of my favorites pointed to the small minority of congressional and other political leaders here and in the UK who have current familial ties to the military). Retired General Scales has been a huge proponent of drawing attention to readiness issues, and I think gets at it as a fundamental strategic problem. So here are a couple of questions I think would help us design a Human Resourcing Strategy to meet not just the military's increased personeel needs - not just in quantity, but also in quality (Quality in the categories of both the very best for public service & in terms of filling the ranks - a buddy was just flash PCS'd to Riley amid reports of soldier disturbances and the need for officers and NCOs on the ground immediately):

Does our Public Will support the required Public Sacrifice in the context of a emerging global power struggle amongst resurgent states, emerging non-state organizations (runs the gammut of groups here) which will compete on many different levels for limited resources (could be energy resources, water, minerals,etc) in an worl that is increasingly at risk to pandemics, global warming, and other environmental accelorators?

OK - I know that's a mouth full, but trying to frame the question show's how difficult captuing the public will to sacrifice their leisure time and cable T.V. can be. Short of an overwhleming cause that has a persitant gravitational theme that is politician proof, the only other recourse I see is to invest in people in such a way that it attracts and retains them. It becomes a standard of living and quality of life for not just them, but their families. Our Political culture seems to have a problem with this - people are risky and expensive (long term costs), and re-elections often require playing to somebody's bottom line. The Heinlein concept of public service for full citizenship (with the caveat of military or some other public service prior to holding office) is probably a non-starter.

Thoughts?

[sullygoarmy]

Rob. Great question. When the extention announcement was made last week, I immediately thought of Heinlein's great book, Starship Troopers (much better than the movie by the way) and how the veterans eventually "rescue" the government and the only way to gain full citizenship is to serve. Great concept but I do not ever see our society making that leap. We have always been very mistrusting of standing militaries all the way back to the founding of our country. The concept of a "citizen-soldier" is the basic foundation of the civilian controlled military today and always has been.

Back to the public will question. I would argue that America does not have the will to make the public sacrifice to deal with both the emerging global power struggle and other world-wide issues. Someday I may look back at this post and say, "boy did the American people ever prove me wrong". But it seems ever since WWII where the government ensured the American people were involved, it just hasn't happened.

Looking at the generations of people the U.S. has produces over the last 80 years gives us a clue as to why the desire for public sacrifice may have declined. The heros of WWII, the fabled "Greatest Generation" went through the depression, loss of jobs, income and overall a lower standard of living. As a result, the expectation of some sort of sacrifice was already established as we entered WWII. The veterans, reaping the well-deserved rewards of the GI Bill, wanted nothing more than peace for their families and to provide them with a better life: enter the baby-boomer generation. I'd argue that the generations after the "greatest generation" have has a lower and lower level of sacrifice expectations based on the increased properity of the United States, its place on the global stage, and the values taught to us as children.

We still have our heros of today, those willing to sacrifice for the greater good of our people. Imagine, however, if we shifted the GDP for military spending to 5% versus the current 3.4%. Or if we did a Thomas Friedman type of tax on gas, raising the price of gas to $5 a gallon to not only pay for the war, but to accelerate the search and development for alternative energy fuels. I suspect these "sacrifices" would cause a major source of discontent across most of the U.S population. We seem to be plodding along as a nation in a dream-like state, opting to focus on the ridiculous news (Imus, Duke Lacrosse, Anna Nichole Smith...she's still dead by the way) than on the tough issues at hand: Iraq, Iraq, global warming, the possible outbreak of a global pandemic. I'm scared that it will take an major bump in the road to awaken America from her dream-like slumber. Something much bigger and worse than 9/11.

And of course, the public is fickle. How long did we have support for the government's actions after 9/11? Two years, maybe less? We've become a fast food society, with little patience for long term plans. The longest our political system looks out is 4 years, which is even longer than the attention span of many of our fellow citizens.

To end my pre-coffee rantings , here's a quote from Starship Troopers "Citizenship is an attitude, a state of mind, an emotional conviction that the whole is greater than the part..and that the part should be humbly proud to sacrifice itself that the whole may live." -Colonel Dubois.

[goesh]

Well said, sullygoarmy.

[Old Eagle]

There has to be a way to increase the audience participation in the security of this great nation. Little bumber stickers aren't doing it for me any more, although they beat the heck out of the alternatives we saw during Vietnam and its aftermath.

Having run the numbers prior to elimination of the last "draft", I can tell you that a) we can't train and maintain 100% military or public service and b) there is a real opportunity cost in tying up huge portion of the nation's youth for any meaningful amount of time. The fact that the last "selective service" was fatally flawed only added to the problem. I have trained with forces of countries with drafts, some for only 6 months or so. As most of you know, six months isn't enough time to impart anything but the most rudimentary military training. It shows.

Not sure what the answer is.

P.S. True confession. I was a draft dodger myself -- joined the Army before my draft board figured out that I had graduated from HS and lost my 2S.

P.P.S. That's silver in my mane, NOT GRAY!

[Tom Odom]

P.P.S. That's silver in my mane, NOT GRAY!

Be happy you have a mane...I just have silver briar patches called ears these days

tom

[Rob Thornton]

Originally posted by Old Eagle,

Having run the numbers prior to elimination of the last "draft", I can tell you that a) we can't train and maintain 100% military or public service and b) there is a real opportunity cost in tying up huge portion of the nation's youth for any meaningful amount of time. The fact that the last "selective service" was fatally flawed only added to the problem. I have trained with forces of countries with drafts, some for only 6 months or so. As most of you know, six months isn't enough time to impart anything but the most rudimentary military training. It shows.

I read an pro-draft argument not too long ago on the value of service as a kind of citizenship program - but as Old Eagle stated, its a huge burden and at odds with creating and maintaining a professional force capable of expeditionary type requirements, not to mention drawing away funds for material needs. Using public service in this manner also invites "experimentation" - something to consider.

Since a draft is not an option which meets our security needs, what is? I think there are a several ways to appeal to the public to serve. The first couple, we already do, and may get you an initial 4 year tour - these are usully "leap frog" options where service is used as a stepping stone to some other career - could be a technical job or politics, or many others. Some will serve based off of traditions, or desire for adventrue. However, as these service members take on additional responsibilities, they take on "quality of life" requirements that the public service may be at odds with since the public as represented by the government may be unable or unwilling to make. At that point they (public servants) have to choose between conflicting responsibilities. As they rationalize where their loyalties are, they start with their perception of loyalty shown to them. Stay (for 20 or 30), or leave and find employment elsewhere in a market that covets the skills public service has developed in them.

I think we need to re-evaluate public service on the premise of "value" and how much we are willing to pay public servants for their talent and sacrifices the majority of the population is unwilling/unable to make. By creating an "incentive to serve" perception that is proportional to the level of sacrifice, you create an organization(s) in which people are willing to endure the hardships associated with it. If your only doing it for a small pecentage of the population - then it becomes a question of how much you can afford vs. the cost of doing without (or in this case an inferior public service required to meet the needs of national security).

We pay hefty prices for professional sports tickets, pay per view, starbucks brews, Internet Service Providers, cltohes etc, that we know are over priced, but we (those aquainted with some flavor of public service are exempted) don't spend very much time thinking about the value of soldier, teacher, fireman, police officer, etc.). Remember Sen. Kerry's gaffe? Why does congress vote itself a raise? Because no one else will (or because it can).

My answer to make public service attractive would be to take a long reaching approach. While bonuses may attract the 19 year old and the first termer, the more mature folks we want to retain require the type of stability that allows them to plan for the long run. They require good medical and dental for their families and housing that their spouses feel good about because they can raise their families in a good environment. They require access to good schools that meet the special needs of families where one of the parents is constantly deployed. They require day care and extra curricular activities for their children that help the families cope with deployment stress while husbands and wives take on the burden of the nation ( and I mean the spouses who are left to run the household. You have to build an organization where loyalty is more then a flash in the pan, and establishes a reputation for success in the public from which it recruits. It has to be worth it. It has to compete. The last one sounds contrary to "public service", but is it given what we are asking? My thoughts are that the burdens of public service on the individual and his family are only going to increase.

Any Human Resourcing Strategy for public service has to be more then just filling pot holes.

[carl]

I contend the American people DO have the will to contend with whatever sacrifices are needed. The American elites, politcal, academic and media DO NOT. The flyover people man the current military, provide the much maligned contract truck drivers and provide what small courtisies (sic) can be given to troops in transit. Do a periodical search and see. One of the States (Texas maybe?) just started a program where the remains of slain soldiers are met at the airport and escorted to their burial site.

The "greatest generation" was great but they were responding to direct and sustained attack. During the Vietnam the Americans put up with years and years of no real strategy in a place of no immediate consequence before we pulled the plug. During Reagan's time we spent what was required until the job was done. In the buildup to this war, no one objected too, in fact everyone expected, the commitment of 400,000 men. The elites were the ones who couldn't stand the thought. Rumsfeld and company cut the force, not some mass letter writing campaign.

I think we (I say this as an always was civilian) will do whatever is asked of us. What we can't do is spontaneously and en-masse create a wise strategy and see it through. The elites are the ones who do that and they aren't up to it.

[SWJED]

30 April LA Times commentary - What War? By Niall Ferguson.

It's a theme of nearly all the great post-Vietnam movies. In "Taxi Driver" and "The Deer Hunter," Robert De Niro plays a veteran who is dismayed, if not unhinged, by homecoming. From the mean streets of New York in the former to the Pennsylvania mining town in the latter, the folks back home just don't get it about the war.

I imagine that some American soldiers returning from tours of duty in Iraq might get an even stronger feeling of alienation if they were to visit, as I have in the last seven days, those quintessential American playgrounds, Las Vegas and Palm Beach. From the casinos of Nevada to the condos of Florida, the good times are rolling, regardless of events in the Middle East.

It's hard to believe, as you walk past the thronged roulette tables and inanely burbling slot machines of Vegas, that this is a country at war. As for that eye-catching billboard "For the Injured" on Interstate 95, I'm afraid it has nothing to do with the war wounded of Operation Iraqi Freedom. It's just another ambulance-chasing lawyer, brazenly advertising his readiness to sue someone if you trip on the sidewalk.

At least vets who came back in the 1970s found that home was pretty messed up too. By contrast, those returning home today must feel like latecomers to a gold rush...

[tequila]

Sounds like our good friend Niall needs to restiffen his upper lip. I doubt the grandees of the Victorian era that Dr. Ferguson so romanticizes stopped their Grand Tours or gambling expeditions because a few regiments of sepoys and low-country scum were slaughtered at Maiwand or taken prisoner in Baghdad --- much less when a few million wogs starved to death in Mysore or Madras. Remount your pith helmet, Dr. Ferguson!