"Army Needs Rebuilding"

[patmc]

From today's SWJ Roundup and Early Bird: "Army Needs Rebuilding" by Bill Maxwell, Washington Times, 26 OCT 08 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ds-rebuilding/

A different look at the Army's retention and recruitment, focusing on desertion as a key indicator.

The result, some officials acknowledge, is that the Army is ailing, and the problem is reflected in the rate of desertions. More soldiers and enlistees are deserting in numbers that have not been seen since Vietnam, when the draft was in effect.

Anecdotal from my unit, there have been more AWOL cases the past two years, and they tended to be recent recruits with drug or discipline issues. Only one was a NCO that had many many many issues. I would not have thought to look at desertions as a basis to judge the volunteer force's viability as the Army is having a much bigger problem keeping quality people with years of service. His argument for better recruiting standards is pretty good though. I guess we're losing on both ends.

As desertions have increased, the Army has stepped up punishment, mostly as a warning to others. The overwhelming majority of deserters are handled administratively, given other than honorable discharges. This is especially true for those who desert during basic training. Soldiers who desert when their units are preparing to deploy, however, will more than likely go to prison. The standard sentence is two years, a far cry from the days when desertion during wartime was punishable by death.

I have yet to see this. The AWOL guys that do show up, even after Dropped From Rolls, tend to get a couple days confinement, if that, then out. Definately don't foresee any firing squads any time soon. Also, there was news recently about the trial for the LT from Washington that refused to deploy. He refused years ago, and he's still not resolved.

[Schmedlap]

I think there are three variables at play here.

1) Marketing and recruiting. The Army sucks at the former, so the latter is suffering from low quality. As a result, we are attracting more of the wrong people. More of the wrong people = more AWOLs and desertions.

2) Attitudes toward service. Our culture gets more narcissistic by the day. Serve others? Forego riches and power in law, politics, medicine, business, or elsewhere? These concepts are making less and less sense to more and more high school and college graduates.

3) Incentivizing irresponsibility. Personal responsibility is almost extinct in this country because we create incentives for people to abandon it. Don't want to fulfill an obligation that you've incurred? No problem. Just abandon that obligation and we'll put you on a pedestal as a crusader, speaking truth to power, rather than regarding you as an overgrown child whose word means nothing. When you encourage a certain attitude or behavior, you tend to get more of it.

[Ken White]

Re-read it and sniffed again. Minor political polemic couched as concern for the Army.

Desertion figures, as patmc says, prove little. As he implies, pursuing the few isn't perceived as worth the trouble and cost -- a minor contributor to schmedlaps astute observation that we have managed to incentivize irresponsibility. Some things are worth paying for even if big 'E' Economically unsound or inefficient.

His comment on marketing and recruiting is also apropos -- I contend that both are badly flawed and have been for over 30 years. Both still are using the WWI - interwar years - WW II, industrial models of trying to entice the low performers into the service because the high performers are 'better used elsewhere.' That's a recipe for mediocrity which we have continued to pursue against all logic. It is, criminally to my mind, an attitude that is espoused by the political leadership in both parties, by academia and -- wrongly -- accepted by the senior leadership of the Army. Low expectations will be met...

If the Army is to do what it needs to do then it must raise its sights and challenge people to prove they're good enough to hack it instead of luring loafers and convincing them they're adequate. That means higher standards, vastly improved entry training and less mickey mouse time wasting. It means not accepting mediocre performance. It means making the changes that a good many in the Army know need to be made.

We have a professional Army mired by draftee minded leadership, civilian and military -- and not at all helped by an incompetent and venal Congress.

That standard raising may be a bridge too far, sad to say -- it will certainly not sit well with those who insist on 'fairness' -- an absolutely ridiculous demand in view of the fact that life is not fair and combat surely is not...

[Rob Thornton]

Ken,
Well said. Best, Rob

[Entropy]

What Rob said. Very well said Ken.

[Icebreaker]

Everyone and Anyone,

I am asking this question as a non-Military type.

I hear a great deal of discussion by "pundits" in the media about "National Service", which basically means bring back the draft. Let me state that I do not think this will happen, because it is politically impossible. When this issue is discussed I have notice a strange pattern - ex-Military types seem to oppose bring back the draft more then people who have only experience as civilians do.

I have heard a number of different proposals -

1. Bringing back a strictly military draft (seems to be the least favored by the chattering classes).

2. Having a National Service program like the Depression era - Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC). Either voluntary or mandatory.

3. Having a combination of #1 and #2, where you would be required to do service but could choose between the two options.

My questions are as follows -

Would bringing back the draft help out the issues discussed in the article?

Would it hurt?

Would brininging back some form of "National Service" help with the issues of narcissism discuss by other posters or would it just be the Government running people's live's for them?

What about my observation that former military seem to oppose the return of the draft more then civilians?

Currently, I am in the best-of-all learning situations - lots of questions and no answers. I want to get some input from people with real world experience.

Thank you for your input.

[Happyshooter]

I have yet to see this. The AWOL guys that do show up, even after Dropped From Rolls, tend to get a couple days confinement, if that, then out. Definately don't foresee any firing squads any time soon. Also, there was news recently about the trial for the LT from Washington that refused to deploy. He refused years ago, and he's still not resolved.

That is a special case pointing more towards the total lack of any ability on the part of the military legal system.

You don't get the finest or smartest lawyers working for the .mil. Then add that fact that most 'defense counsel' at best do a half ass job of defending enlisted guys caught with porn or drugs, and more likely the 'defense counsel' is about three inches short of actively railroading their clients.

Once the military justice system was up against a crew of honest real life defense lawyers they got owned badly. The government actually spiked the case after screwing up the pre-trial agreement.

I suspect the Lt in question will never do time, and it is because the military JAGs really can't win against a defense lawyer that is doing his job.

[Ken White]

stacked to protect the rights of the accused...

Little of both, I suspect. Military lawyers are like Privates and Generals or like military doctors or even like civilian lawyers. Some are better than others; a few are great, a few are pathetic and most are average.

[jmm99]

The Ehren Watada case is not a good precedent on which to base general conclusions. Besides being a high-profile case, it is a complex case from the standpoint of military, constitutional and international law. Besides all those issues (in the original court martial), the case involves some complex habeas corpus issues (in the Federal District Court case following the original court martial).

This is an interesting case (to me; since similar cases came up during the Vietnam War), but I will spare you a blow by blow analysis. For those who might be interested in more, here are some links.

A long Wiki discussion, which seems well sourced (60+ links), is here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada

You will find the webpage in support of the 1/LT (started by his mother according to the Wiki, sourced to a Seattle Intelligencer article) here.

http://www.thankyoult.org/

Ken and others here will love the list of the 1/LT's supporters - it will increase your blood circulation and lung capacity, thereby prolonging life.

The filings in the habeas proceeding before Judge Benjamin Settle are here (links to .pdf files).

http://www.thankyoult.org/content/view/2/77/

The Seattle Times article on Judge Settle's 21 Oct 2008 ruling that double jeopardy barred 3 of 5 counts - because of the military judge's improper handling of the stipulation between the government and Watada - is here.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ruling22m.html

You will have to take this on faith in my opinion - which is, that perhaps 1 in 100 (more likely 1 in 1000) lawyers would be competent to handle this case on either side of the brief.

That brings me to a point that fits (IMO) very generally into the theme of this thread.

---------------------------------------

from Ken
... civilian lawyers. Some are better than others; a few are great, a few are pathetic and most are average.

My first impression was "that's logically correct" - "right on Ken !" But, then I got to thinking a bit deeper. Now, the "most are average" statement is logically and statistically correct, if the population follows a standard bell curve. In the case of civilian lawyers, I don't believe that is the type of curve (based on experience and a lot of MSBA statistics, which would make boring reading here).

What I come up with (even looking at all lawyers generally) is a double-humped curve - a smaller group of above-average lawyers and a larger group of below-average lawyers. The "average lawyer" lies between the two humps. That becomes more apparent when we realize that not all lawyers are fungible.

There are many areas of the law in which I am totally incompetent - the last time I saw them (if at all) was in cramming for the NY and MI bar exams nearly 40 years ago. The lack of competence shows up even in areas that are related to areas one knows well.

Recently, I had a matter where I completed about 95% of the work for a "nice guy" client. We hit a couple of remaining areas (related) where I simply didn't know the law; but more importantly, I did not know what the operational realities were - how the law is actually applied.

Could have faked it (and collected some ill-gotten $) - or spent many non-billable hours learning a skill set I would never use again. The correct choice was to refer to a lawyer, who happened to be a specialist in the areas making up the remaining 5% of the matter.

So, when one looks to specific legal skill sets, the curve would be very double-humped - a small group of real pros and a much larger group of rank amateurs as to that particular skill set. That should be no surprise to folks here, where the military obviously has its own specific skill sets.

Now, tis true that some specialities are quite generalized. For example, a good trial lawyer, with both civil and criminal trial experience, should be able to handle most litigation.

But, even there, there are areas where one shouldn't go. I would not try a divorce case because I have never been counsel of record in one (have advised divorce lawyers on non-divorce areas relevant to the cases). The military seems similar (based on what I have gleaned from reading the military posts here).

-----------------------------------
I have stated elsewhere that the military has to deal with more difficult problems than do lawyers (who primarily deal with micro, as opposed to macro, situuations - the micros are usually less "messy"). Thus, this civilian concludes that civilians should tread carefully in attempting to "rebuild the Army, Marines, etc."

And, just in this civilian's opinion, I don't think the "Army needs rebuilding". I do think that the Army needs some serious decompression time for personnel - and some serious refitting efforts for equipment.

I also agree with many of the other comments above that point to the need to "rebuild" our society as a greater need.

We shall see what President Obama will do about that, with solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. The voters will have a chance to review that in 2 years and 4 years.

[Ken White]

Should've spelled it out, pet-ard. Sigh.

First, I was not commenting on the Watada case; I agree with you -- it was a monstrosity. Every time anyone in DoD decides to "make an example" of someone, they pretty well screw it up. The Army should've just nailed the guy for an Article 134 violation; Field Grade Article 15 and assigned him to Tooele. Too many inexperienced JAG Officers (or their Commanders...) will try to stack charges and that's usually not very smart. Then, IMO, the Military Judge copped out. I'd also suggest that the case, even though I was not referring to it does in a sense bear out my comment about extensive protection for the rights of the accused. Regardless, Watada is yet another case of plenty of egg for many faces...

In the event, my comment on the UCMJ was purely generic and not case specific. As was my comment on several categories of others and not just Lawyers intended to be generic. I am hoist by my own pet--whatever that thing is -- because I went quick and lazy with a generalization. I'd have gotten away with it had I not included the word Lawyers...

Let me remind you that as I have pointed out before, I am not member of the Bar and thus am supposed to be allowed a certain laxness in speech. I am also old and feeble and should warn you that your continued persecution of the geritric set is probably being noted by Prez Elect Obama's minions..

That said, I bow to your impeccable logic:

"...What I come up with (even looking at all lawyers generally) is a double-humped curve - a smaller group of above-average lawyers and a larger group of below-average lawyers. The "average lawyer" lies between the two humps."

I would further submit that your Bactrian curve applies not only to the counselors at Law but to all the categories I cited, including Private and Generals and to most of the world in most things. Scary, huh?

[120mm]

The Army should've just nailed the guy for an Article 134 violation; Field Grade Article 15 and assigned him to Tooele.

Ummm. I've been assigned to Tooele. Does that mean I screwed up somehow and noone told me?

But I get your drift...

[Icebreaker]

First of all let me thank everyone who responded to my question about possibly bringing back the draft. I got a great deal from the responses (facts and perspectives that had not occurred to me).

Secondly, one of the reason I asked the question is not only the need to rebuild the Army, but also that President Elect Obama has said that "national service" will be a big part of his administration. See below to a link to his position on the issue:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Natio...nFactSheet.pdf

I realize that what a politician says and does are two very different things. However, the "brain trust" behind his campaign has been talking about "national service" for years. Many of the people who have been talking about national service frankly mean it as a form of social engineering (see a book titled "Bowling Alone" for some background on it).

The official position is much more realistic, and along the lines of what was discussed - You provide "X" amount of service tro the country and receive educational benfits for it. I have no problem with this, but having worked for the Federal Government for 25 years I can attest to the fact that federal programs are like Frankenstein's Monster - they get out of hand fast and do a lot of harm.

I do not know what we will get but I am hoping for some that adds real value to the country.

Thirdly, in the area of education my father was a public school teacher for 47-years (cancer and heart disease forced him to retire). He always said that two things caused all of the problems with the eductaional systems:

1. The schools were given too many things to do. Along with education they were suppose to be social workers, therapists.... All of this diluted the real mission of school and education lost out.

2. The parents usually could not have cared less. He coached the high school football team all those years and at the end of the season you would not believe how many parents did NOT bother to come to "Awards Night". My fathers comment was always - "What else do those losers have to do that's more important." That's my Dad.

Thanks again

[Schmedlap]

... President Elect Obama has said that "national service" will be a big part of his administration... The official position is much more realistic, and along the lines of what was discussed - You provide "X" amount of service tro the country and receive educational benfits for it.

Here is a big problem with that. We already give away educational benefits for nothing. Rather than create new benefits that are predicated upon "service" (an interesting twisting of the definition of service), we should start requiring "service" in exchange for the benefits already conferred upon people who are paying for their education with federal funds, pell grants, federally-subsidized student loans, et cetera. I can attest that, as someone who has attended four universities (two private and two public) that almost all people who receive federal funds and/or subsidized loans do not need the assistance. They just take it because they can. Somehow, in spite of their professed "need" they are able to go out to the bar almost every night, spent a couple hundred dollars per week on dinner, and have a surprising amount of leisure time.

I realize that what a politician says and does are two very different things.

I pray for that to be the case in this election. It disturbs me when the country acts so irrationally as to put one party in charge of the Executive and Legislature branches, regardless of which party that may be. This year was the culmination of years of anti-Bush sentiment driven primarily by the Long War and exacerbated more recently by the credit markets. Fear and ignorance.

... in the area of education my father was a public school teacher for 47-years... He always said that two things caused all of the problems with the eductaional systems:
1. The schools were given too many things to do...
2. The parents usually could not have cared less.

My father (not a teacher) always said that sending your kids to school is one of the worst things that you can do because they pick up the bad habits of everybody else's rotten kids. I'm now living in a small city in a location that has never really had a booming economy, even in good times. In my opinion, it has nothing to do with economic policy, laws, location, resources, et cetera. It is entirely attributable to this locale being inhabited overwhelmingly by people who fit perfectly into the stereotype known as "white trash." When I go out for a run, I pass through some residential parts of the city and it is appalling. Every day, I see enormously overweight women screaming obscenities at one another as their numerous ill-behaved children, who look like they haven't bathed in days, run around in the street. Those kids don't have a chance. And when they go to school, I strongly suspect that other kids pick up some pretty lousy habits and language from them and otherwise have their learning process severely disrupted.