Why Study War?

[Ken White]

...

"Daddy, you should take all your lieutenants and make them do this too."

If I only could, Audrey. If I only could. This week, though, I'll be happy if they get down the 5 paragraph OPORD format to standard.

process. METL, ArTEP, Tasks, conditions and standards were adopted after a lengthy gestation process in the late 60s-early 70s to train to minimal competence a large Draftee Army (even as the Draft ceased before the system got truly embedded in the Army..).

For that, they worked fairly well. I was never an ArTEP fan; the process did get rid of the valleys in unit training but it also chopped off the peaks. We paid and pay lip service to the process but when doo doo occurs when we tend to go into a specific trainup for deployment -- as we should -- to peak the unit for its impending missions.

The Army as a result of the old hard core WW II Commanders reducing NCOs and firing nice guys of all ranks for failing Army Training Tests in the 50s and 60s moved away from performance testing into the gray area of ArTEP / ORT etc. completion with no penalty for bad failures. That was absolute reality when I hung up my war suit in 1977. The NTC and JRTC modified that a bit but there still is no hard benchmark -- or, more correctly, there was not when I last retired in 1995. Maybe there is now, I hope so.

Hopefully things have changed and we're willing now to test people and units and react harshly to real failures (as opposed to over reacting to minor nits; a practice at which we excel...). I've never understood that objection to testing -- other than the political correctness angle, of course. Can't make the Personnel management system look bad.

Same problem occurs with the Standards routine in individual education and training, it gets everyone up to a minimally acceptable baseline but it stifles the sharp guys. Having taught a slew of AOB students over several years in another lifetime, I witnessed first hand the undesirable side effects, the stultifying results on the really good in order to allow the not so good to survive (a caveat on that, 2LTs need to be given a break, a lot of folks don't get into their groove for a couple of years, saw a number of marginal Gold bars come back to Knox later with two silver bars and they were totally different people by thatb time. Some didn't change much, of course ).

I also watched a number of tasks which had low 'Go' rates farmed out for unit as opposed to institutional training in order to make the rates look good. Not to mention modifying the standards to do the same thing on occasion. Or the games with Instructor Contact Hours...

I'm not at all sure that we truly realize we really do have a professional Army nowadays and that these kids are capable of doing a whole lot more than we tend to let them do...

Not really criticizing anything or anybody; just random thoughts from a long time doer and observer.

[Rob Thornton]

Hi Ken,
You know that is a very valid line of thought. In any course these days, there seems to be all the things that have to be taught in order to ensure the student gets to the baseline. Someone always crams more requirements into the baseline while leaving little time to explore how those ideas fit and can be used - sometimes I wonder if the purpose of PME is to build better leadership potential, or just to cover the latest crisis of the day.

I'd also say that some of those injected things often seem to remain in a POI long after the crisis passes, or is relevant. Some courses are more dynamic, but overall it seems that because of the nature of change/adaptation (we talked that one in another thread), most courses reflect POIs more relevant to the past.

The answer on the surface would appear to build in more time so we could do both - check the required blocks and spend some time looking forward. However, it seems to be a zero sum gain. Only so much is going to get funded, and there is the issue of getting bodies back from the schoolhouse into jobs that must be filled. So it would seem to be serious about changing education and training is going to require more people and more money so we can invest more into the people - which always gets me back to the observation about if you want to see what is really important to someone look comparatively at what they spend their money on.

I'd also say that there are those rare instructors who are passionate about building leaders, and will do everything they can to prepare students for the challenges ahead. They seem to be able to find a way to balance meeting requirements and building leaders who can face the challenges ahead. Sometimes this may mean just providing relevant context to the required subject matter. Sometimes it means starting at the required place as written, but willing to depart as the students become more participatory and take the conversation where it needs to go.

Finally, I always worry about the bigger rucksack. It sounds great until someone makes a packing list full of stuff that used to go in the dufflebag, but now goes in the MOLLE. If we did have more bodies and more $$$ would we really trust ourselves to leave white space and fund things like week long staff rides for everybody? We have a cultural A type predisposition to wire things tighter then the crack of dawn. We efface that type of inflexibility in many other ways as well - and inhibits our finding solutions that are timely and practical, but unorthodox and might invite criticism if they don't work out perfect.

If we want to change the nature of PME and training, I think we really have to get to how our service culture influences our approach. Guys like Tom & RTK are leading the charge on this, but it may take awhile to permeate out to the branches.

Regards, Rob

[wm]

Hi Ken,

The answer on the surface would appear to build in more time so we could do both - check the required blocks and spend some time looking forward. However, it seems to be a zero sum gain. Only so much is going to get funded, and there is the issue of getting bodies back from the schoolhouse into jobs that must be filled. So it would seem to be serious about changing education and training is going to require more people and more money so we can invest more into the people - which always gets me back to the observation about if you want to see what is really important to someone look comparatively at what they spend their money on.

Rob,
I suggest that if we want to get serious about education and training, then we need to revise the model that we use and then enforce it. We could follow the lead of other professions and require that our military members do additional training on their own time to maintain currency. A paradigm already exists in DoD--uinder the auspices of the Defense Acquisition University, the acquisition career fields require that one achieve a certain level of education and training to be certified at one of three levels. Some of this training is available via distance learning, but some requires in-residence instruction. Once one is certified, Federal statutes require that one take continues learning coursework to retain certification. However, to the best of my knowledge, nothing happens to folks who fail to meet their continuing learning requirements.

This model was partially implemented when the Army started SQT testing, but I do not think it made it all the way to the entire force. And I don't remember ever hearing of a soldier getting the boot for not passing an SQT.

BTW, formal education in a group environment, only establishes a minimum baseline of competency. To go beyond that level would, I suspect, require some invocation of what would probably end up being charged as elitist selection processes. Such a charge would definitely result in curtailed funding (to your money point).

[Anthony Hoh]

The NTC and JRTC modified that a bit but there still is no hard benchmark -- or, more correctly, there was not when I last retired in 1995. Maybe there is now, I hope so.

Ken,
As a fellow no slacker, I wanted to give a first person perspective that is a little more current. When I went to ANCOC in 2004, a significant portion of our POI was dedicated to some newer technologies like the MCS-Light. However, we also still covered some cold war techniques, the one that sticks out in my mind was our two days at the demo range. Believe me I understand that as an 11B you should be a jack of all trades. However, in my 15 years I have never been given any form of demo in training or in combat, to include blasting caps, C4, det cord, or flex charges without a current and qualified Army Engineer or EOD tech by my side. It just doesn’t happen. Two days wasted. Now without putting a stick in anyone’s eye let me tell you why I think it was a waste of time.
Most of us agree with the concept of the strategic corporal, his powerful impact in COIN, as he/she interacts positively with the populace. By default where is the strategic Squad Leader/ Platoon Sergeant? The COIN center of excellence and other organizations put together great briefs on planning and implementation. However, there is a problem, the venue for these briefs are usually BDE and BN Commanders. I feel privileged to be in an Army with great leadership and I could not do it better. However, from a first person perspective what commanders learn in these seminars is not trickling down below the Company Commanders. To my knowledge, and I have checked within the last few months there is no COIN classes or briefs placed in the NCOES from WLC (a.k.a PLDC) through ANCOC. Our course here at Polk has a great STX with a MRE feel, But a lot of flag officers agree that the strategic corporal is the answer. My BDE Commander obviously circulates in a higher sphere of influence…(Mayors, Provincial, Governors) He is just one man. How many specialists are in a BDE, how many people do they interact with in one tour? Ok what are we doing to train him from a school house perspective on COIN? ….Nothing.

[Ken White]

Hi Rob. Good points all, paricularly agree with your first paragraph. I remember reading years ago a comment from an ergonomics guy that he was constantly amazes at how little though most people put into the best way to arrive at the goal they wanted to achieve..

Both you and Anthony make a valid case on the things that stay in the POI seemingly in defiance of logic. Sometimes its there, logic I mean, but is obscured by other things. Take his Demo classes. He makes a valid point about an Engineer being around for anything stronger than an M80 -- but is that due to military necessity or a protective action on the part of the system to make sure one of us dumb grunts doesn't blow up the TOC? I submit the latter. That from the perspective of one who used a fair amount of demo in Korea and a little bit in Viet Nam (in 66, by 68 an engineer was required... ). I also suggest the some of the protectionism is not safety or the rep of the institution driven but parochial. Back in the day, the Signal Corps fought the AN/PRC series radios tooth and nail as they could see jobs and spaces melting away...

Having spent some time in TRADOC before I manged to escape, I'm familiar with the time problem. And the money problem. The mantra was then and is now that we cannot afford to train a guy for other than his next job. I fought that tooth and nail (lost) on the basis that, due to someone's death being the kicker, we could not afford to fail to train a guy for a job two levels above his next job. My favortie question of every AOAC was ""How many of you have already commanded a Company or Troop?" followed by "How many of you have been at the Deputy Dog level on a Brigade staff?"

We do have a training fund allotment problem and I contend it is largely Congressionally driven, that and the institutional protection syndrome / budget dollar battle. Congress is willing to spend megabucks on big ticket hardware produced with sub-contractors in multiple districts, the more the better. they are not willing to spend money on training from which they derive little benefit. The services all acquiesce on that.

Agree on the good instructors except I don't think they're all that rare; my guess would be about a third are willing to cheat, lie and steal to properly train their charges, that so many do is a tribute to them and is proved by the fact that the system works as well as it does and almost in spite of itself.

On the bigger ruck bit, when my kid first described the Molle sack some years ago and its size; all I said was "that's really dumb, we're gonna trade a fifty buck little ALICE ruck for a big whomping internal frame that cost $200 plus and that you can't carry a water can on; one that will rapidly get filled to over 100 pounds? Neat." and lo...

Hi WM: Thanks. My experience was that most members of the Armed forces spent a fair amount of their own time training on their own dime. That was certainly true in most units I was in. YMMV.

Not sniping at you, you were simply citing a principle, I realize -- but I'm unsure that the Defense Acquisition Community is a model for much other than how not to do things.

I agree that you probably didn't hear of a soldier getting the boot for not passing a SQT (not that those tests were all that swift) but I suggest that with a properly designed and administered test, we probably should see some departures for failure. At all levels.

I also think I am expressly pointing at an elitist selection process; like the drug war, the current egalitarian system isn't doing all it should do for the money spent on it...



Hi Anthony; Thanks for the update. Heh. Hear you on the Demo; been to four courses where rappelling was part of the course; made over 200 combat or recon patrols and have never had to rappell. See my Demo comment to Rob, above.

I totally agree with you on the Strategic Sqd Ldr and Plat Daddy. Had they started out as strategic Corporals, it would've been okay. They didn't and it isn't okay. Major failure on the part of TRADOC and the branch schools -- and the Sergeant Majors who are supposed to keep an eye on stuff like that...

The Bn and Bde Cdrs should also be plunking for that and I'm sure some are but the majority are too busy fighting bureaucratic Alligators to even see much less drain the swamp. That, by the way is not a lick on those commanders. It is, however, one on their bosses bosses...

Thanks.

[wm]

Maybe my choice of Defense Acquisition was ill advised. It is probably best as a venue for learning how not to do things, but that was part of my point. We can learn a lot from studying how not to do things too.

One point of my examples was that we usually only do well when the boss checks up on us or, in what amounts to the same thing, if there is a negative consequence for not doing well. Back in the days of the old 5 event PT tests (remember the trip, stumble, and fall; the horizontal hand ripper, etc.) most folks I knew scored a llittle over 300 points even thought the max possible was 500. As long as you scored 60 points in each event you were good to go--no negative consequences. Why try to "over achieve" when the only positive for maxing the test was an attaboy from your leadership (maybe a three day pass, which became an almost useless incentive when all off-duty time became free time).

I was also trying to suggest that our post-entry training and education ought to be more like that of other professionals out there--doctors, nurses, PMI-certified project managers, teachers, even lawyers all have some kind of recurring professional education requirements to maintain their certifications or licensure. Military members are "licensed" professionals as well. Maybe we need to prove that we are keeping current and competent in our profession in order to stay in it. I submit that this might be a much better way to keep a competent and ready force than the current techniques of "up or out" promotions.

[Ken White]

humor needs work. Our snotty, sorry kids agree with her...

That may have given the impression I disagreed with your comment, I do not. I agree on the continuing education. The services of course do that to an extent. You don't get promoted unless you go to the requisite schools for each step and it's a rare Field Grade Officer that isn't working on or does not have an advanced degree. As I also said above, most folks, even the NCOs do devote some to much of their own time -- and money, in many cases -- to education and training. In any event there's room for improvement and a method of rotating out to the world or sabbatical -- long term adventure training on the British model -- lot of things could be done to improve the process which is today to heirarchial and check-the-box. not to mention that the quality of some instruction is cast about two or three levels below the capability of most students.

You're absolutely right on failure without consequences; that has been an annoyance to me for many years. In the pre-dawn of the late fifties with a lot of old hard core WW II folks around if you failed you got tossed (conversely, fairly minor disciplinary stuff was overlooked. Fortunately for me ). By the mid 80s, one could fail without fear of failure (except for minor disciplinary stuff that got people thrown out of the service) and that is absolutely the wrong message. That too may have improved since '95 but it was still the case then. Thus my "elitist' schtick; what's wrong with being elite? Mediocrity in military performance will get people killed, yet we tolerate it. Doesn't make sense.

Also agree that up or out is problematic -- in fact, I think its counter productive. That process is really going to need a relook -- particularly as the high reenlistment rates today in the combat arms are going to create a massive surplus of SGT/SSG pretty soon. Of course, the Army can do what it's done in the past; forcibly reclassify them to odd job MOSC (and cause them to get out). My all time pet was the chopper pilots in Viet Nam. They commissioned the top 30% of the Warrant Officers, the best there were and those guys got up to CPT and then they threw most of 'em out of the Army. Not back to Warrant or even back to an old enlisted grade; out. There were a few exceptions but not many. Terminally dumbbb. And the Personnel community has not burnished their image since...

[Rob Thornton]

Hey WM, hey Ken,

We could follow the lead of other professions and require that our military members do additional training on their own time to maintain currency. A paradigm already exists in DoD--under the auspices of the Defense Acquisition University, the acquisition career fields require that one achieve a certain level of education and training to be certified at one of three levels. Some of this training is available via distance learning, but some requires in-residence instruction. Once one is certified, Federal statutes require that one take continues learning coursework to retain certification. However, to the best of my knowledge, nothing happens to folks who fail to meet their continuing learning requirement

I'm not against distance learning but I sometimes disagree with the way institutions use it as the cure all to their educational problems. For a deployed military, the IT tools may be there, but the time due to optempo might not be. I think PME or ACS that allows the leader to step out of his responsibilities for a period is of immense value because it allows for:
-The opportunity to reflect on how the experiences make sense in terms of what they are learning now
- The opportunity to interact with peers (could be military, could be civilian) and consider personal experiences in the context of those of the class (cold be just considering a different point of view, or could be a different geographical area and a different enemy)
- Feedback from the instructor/professor and the class in a real-time, personally interactive way (some IT has brought this along, but it requires BW and also requires students to be online at the same time - again, a bit harder to do in a deployed environment)
- There is often the opportunity for guest speakers and discussion that follows.
- Staff rides that compliment and reinforce course objectives using a historical venue on physical terrain so you can visualize the scope.
- I believe it a quicker route to making what is learned tacit.
- Then there is also the opportunity to just relax and turn it down a notch - maybe spend some time with the family - and balance things out a bit.

I've done some distance learning while doing a current job - its not easy. Self study offers some benefits, and by all means should remain a part of our education strategy (I've just about finished my masters online), however, we should maximize every opportunity to send our folks to schools - be they a demo course, ILE or ACS. IF the military is going to be the primary beneficiary and tack on additional service requirements, then it should not require further stress on the military family.

What we need is to look at every soldier, sailor, airman, marine as a potential 20 - 40 year service member. This sort of long term view of human capital requires a different investment strategy. It probably scares the hell out of some because people are expensive, and good people more so - but we've already identified that in the types of wars we are currently engaged in (and will be for some time,) - good people on the ground are critical to turning tactical successes into opportunities for operational advantages and then translating those into strategic success.

The degree to which people are invested in (goes beyond the educational investment) I think corresponds how effective they are and how long they will stick with the organization.

Ken is spot on about how the $$$ are divvied out. An FCS or some piece of hardware that directly benefits a congressional district in a short-term, quantified way is easy for them to support and argue for. However, long term investment in a subjective way that improves the quality and effectiveness of our Armed Forces as a whole and also creates a thinking citizenry that comes back and contributes to the nation beyond their service commitments - and also educates the community on what is required to secure our liberties for future generations.

While new hardware and tech are good things, we must not waiver in our commitment to the people who employ them. I heard a good definition for tactics which I modified a bit - it is the thinking, human application of technology on the battlefield to achieve a purpose. I liked it because the soldier, sailor, airman or marine are central to employment of the technology.

[Ski]

I'm not a big believer in DL for any kind of accredited Army schooling. It works to an extent, but Rob has highlighted the major deficencies of DL. I'm taking a Master's degree through DL, and while it is great because of the instructors and the material, the lack of real interaction with my peers leaves a lot to be desired.

I also have a bit of a problem with Active Component schools in general - they are too long and do not make the best use of the time allowed. We used to joke in AOAC that it was the best 8 weeks of training jammed into 16 weeks anyone could devise. Of course, that was the same course when a certain troop commander told us that it was designed to develop BN and BDE staff officers, not commanders. It was funny, but not "ha-ha" funny. I've also been told that the schools are long because it is a break from the operating force. Well, that might be true, but it seems to me that the personnel system has been the hub of a lot of evils within the AC. Can't rotate officers too quickly out of command (what is the current policy on company command in the AC? it was 12 months back in 02?) you know!

I also agree with the problems associated with not teaching/training platoon sergeants and squad leaders about COIN or assumption of greater responsibility when there are casualties. That seems awfully myopic to me seeing that COIN is a Company and below fight for the most part.

Investing in people - that will never happen with the Army's personnel policies. Everything is demand and percentage driven. It's all about meeting mission - whether it be recruiting (hey don't look now - we like criminals more than gays!), fill for deployment (we just can't have less than 105% fill for this deployment!), etc...

[jcustis]

While new hardware and tech are good things, we must not waiver in our commitment to the people who employ them. I heard a good definition for tactics which I modified a bit - it is the thinking, human application of technology on the battlefield to achieve a purpose. I liked it because the soldier, sailor, airman or marine are central to employment of the technology.

That is so getting stolen...

[slapout9]

Instead of always uprooting people to go to schools why not move the schools to the people. By that I mean the Instructors,guest speakers,etc. should go to the location where the people need them instead of the other way around. This is not a total cure as in some case you would have to go to a particular spot (staff Ride,etc.) but may be that could be handled by a field trip Seems a lot easier to have the instructors mobile than having to keep thousands of students always on the move.

[Ken White]

DL has good points but is no substitute for the interaction. I've learned as much in bars all over the world as I ever learned in classrooms...

The cramming of 8 weeks into 16 is older than I am (Yes, that is possible... ) and it needed to be stopped long ago; a great deal of that is related to the rather stupid bureaucratic way we 'justify' the staffing of instructors and cadre.

People is / are what it's all about. Most will try to do the right thing most of the time -- we all have bad days -- and most are capable of far more than we ask of them. We see that every day in the Army, people performing way above their 'potential' or nominally expected capability but we don't take advantage of it. We should.

We need to look at the upcoming SGT/SSG bubble and at long term retention. These guys are staying in because of the challenge; they and the LTs and CPTs that are sticking it out in spite of family concerns are going to require some thought to retain when things settle down and the challenge departs.

We ought to be able to pay or otherwise reward people for doing a really good job without necessarily promoting them in rank. While I firmly believe most people are capable of doing far more than we generally ask of them, I'm also firmly convinced the Peter Principle is valid.

Kudos, by the way, to Cody for asking those Captains what they though about their generals -- and listening to them.

[jcustis]

We need to look at the upcoming SGT/SSG bubble and at long term retention. These guys are staying in because of the challenge; they and the LTs and CPTs that are sticking it out in spite of family concerns are going to require some thought to retain when things settle down and the challenge departs.

Somethign struck me when read this bit Ken, and made me wonder if we simply have it all wrong.

We employ EAS counseling sessions, exit surveys, and a litany of other transition tools to try to determine why servicemembers are getting out...perhaps we should be more concerned with why folks are staying in, then cultivate that.

Think about it. Once joe signs up for another hitch, the establishment is golden. He gets a bonus, maybe a choice of duty station, and then moves on. If we're lucky his leadership is engaged and understands what drives that person. Once someone decides to re-enlist, it seems to end there. I know of very few surveys aimed at tracking the metrics of why a member CHOSE TO BE RETAINED. He or she made choices just the same as someone who chose to leave, yet we aren't listening to what they have to say.

[Anthony Hoh]

We employ EAS counseling sessions, exit surveys, and a litany of other transition tools to try to determine why servicemembers are getting out...perhaps we should be more concerned with why folks are staying in, then cultivate that.

10 characters

[Ken White]

the answers will be as vague as all those in all the surveys that ask "Why did you enlist." I also suspect that the real answer is "Because I'm doing something that's a challenge, I'm making a difference and I'm doing something a lot of people won't or can't do and I'm working with some of the best people I've ever known."

And having cool toys doesn't hurt...

However, we still ought to ask -- and we ought to pay attention to what we hear.

[Rob Thornton]

DR/COL (R) Mike Matheny, our BSAP (Basic Strategic Arts Program) guru at Carlisle - although I added the piece about people because I felt it was incomplete without it (I thought about it a long time before I was comfortable with it).

Thanks to him and my fellow 59s I'm starting to better understand the linkages between the levels of war.
Best, Rob

[selil]

I think PME or ACS that allows the leader to step out of his responsibilities for a period is of immense value because it allows for:

-The opportunity to reflect on how the experiences make sense in terms of what they are learning now

- The opportunity to interact with peers (could be military, could be civilian) and consider personal experiences in the context of those of the class (cold be just considering a different point of view, or could be a different geographical area and a different enemy)

- Feedback from the instructor/professor and the class in a real-time, personally interactive way (some IT has brought this along, but it requires BW and also requires students to be online at the same time - again, a bit harder to do in a deployed environment)

- There is often the opportunity for guest speakers and discussion that follows.

- Staff rides that compliment and reinforce course objectives using a historical venue on physical terrain so you can visualize the scope.

- I believe it a quicker route to making what is learned tacit.

- Then there is also the opportunity to just relax and turn it down a notch - maybe spend some time with the family - and balance things out a bit.

I don't want to derail the thread but I'm just finishing a rather substantial project to deliver high value, collaborative, multi-media enriched, content via distance learning. Except for spending time with family we answer most of Rob Thortons curricula questions using a suite of technologies. If anybody is interested I'll provide a link to the design document (it will be the original not the current sorry) but it is heavy in information technology that supports.

We can all say it together "but, technology it's not like being there"...

Really we get you there, but it has to be seen to be believed and right now it's mainly set up towards teaching technology.

[Rob Thornton]

Sam,
Thanks. Can you give us a summary of the differences between what we currently see in DL and how what is new will improve DL. It'd also be good to hear what you think are the shortfalls.

If we can get DL to a point where supplemental education - which is ever growing as more requirements are placed on soldier & leaders to prepare for mission sets, transition to a new type of unit, or prepare for promotion boards - then maybe we can focus quality on core educational experiences where personal interaction is best utilized.

The requirements are starting to add up. As IT improves DL I think the expectation will point towards the "soldier-scholar-pentathlete". I hope we are not building unrealistic expectations for the amount we are willing to invest to achieve those expectations (recruit, train, maintain, retain).

Regards, Rob

[wm]

Rather than cramming 8 weeks of training into 16 (or in the case of my advanced course, cramming one month of training into 6), we could do something really creative--do a DL component followed up by an in-resident component, which would give one the best of both worlds.

Back in the day, I was an early attendee (known today in the software world as Beta testers) of the Combined Arms and Services Staff School (CAS-cubed). Before we went to the in-resident phase at Leavenworth (short course, not wearing brown-dyed fatigues with a P on the back), we had to do a bunch of reading and take a pretest on that reading. Then we got to go to interact with folks from across the Army in our various staff groups. That CAS3 was the best training experience of my career--most of the value I received from the peer interaction was learning how not to do things.
I reached MEL4 via correspondence course while still a very junior O-3. I found that my ability to operate on a Division staff was just as good as that of my peers who did the resident version in Kansas (of course that may have more to do with the people involved and less to do with the training venues.)

BTW, I was told that the reason the advanced/career course lasted 6 months was based on a funding issue--it was cheaper to PCS us than to pay us per diem. So, the course had to be for longer than the 179 day max TDY period. Ain't it great when beancounting RM folks force your decisions?

[jastay3]

Something I've been batting around in my head for a bit: Does the volunteer military create a "free lunch" in American society?

As an ecomonics student in college I learned there was no such thing as a free lunch, everything has a cost. However, with a volunteer military, is there now a "free lunch" for those who decide not serve, especially during a time of war or conflict. For those adult Americans who are not serving or have not or served and without direct relations to a servicemember (Wife/ husband or child of a servicemember under the age of 18) what is the cost to them?

Yes, they pay taxes that financially support the military. However, as a servicemember I pay the same taxes, (In effect I helping to pay my own salary every year (When I'm not deployed atleast).) For that reason, I do not think taxes count as a true cost to those who do not serve since they are not unique to them, they have not incurred those costs specifically because they have chosen not to serve.

If taxes are not considered a "cost," what costs are there for the person who chooses not to serve that make the "lunch" not free?

Obviously, the underlying assumption of my argument is that those who do not serve gain a benefit, the free lunch, that is provided by those who do serve: security.

However, if you argue that our operations ISO GWOT are making the US less secure, not more secure, it would follow that there is "no free lunch" because the purported benefit, security, is not being delivered.

Unfortunetly, I do not think you can assess if there is a benefit "now" or if they will be one in the future. However, it could be argued that there has been a benefit over the past several years because the US homeland has not been attacked since 9/11, the starting point of the GWOT for the US.

Back to my initial question: Does the volunteer military create a "free lunch" in American society?

__________________________________________________ _____________

Calling a voluteer military a "free lunch" is odd. The purpose of the military is to be the "uniforms that guard us when we sleep"-in other words to make sure that as many people can have a "free lunch" in that sense as is plausible.
I tend to think that using conscripts for Small Wars is ineffective(for, by necessity morale will be strained and conscripts cannot maintain the subtlety necessary). It is also unethical because few conscripts have an immiediate personal stake. Conscription should be reserved for times when the danger to the country is obvious, extrodinary, and immiediate.
In fact I think we should go the other way. Accept that Professionals are Professionals and don't worry to much when they are doing their jobs. We do our, "brave young men and women in uniform" no favors if we interfere with their task by sentimentilizeing them as if they were refighting World War II instead of dealing with what is basically another Savage War of Peace.