"Army Needs Rebuilding"

[Ken White]

I think it will be the right time and place in 4 - 8 more years, should the 'long war' continue.

Should the long war continue, the issue of National service and thus a military Draft will solve precisely what problem in that 'war?'

I place 'war' in quotes because as I indicated, I think this is at the same time less than a war and more than one -- it is not a war, it is an ethnic conflict with worldwide intelligence, military and law enforcement ramifications induced by the appeasement oriented western civilizations tolerance of some pushy and fanatic purported Islamists during the period 1972-2001. If you have not yet read it, I suggest you obtain access to a copy of the Nixon commissioned Global Terrorism report produced in 1976 and as a result of the attack in Munich in 1972 - LINK.

Your desire for a Draft to me indicates a need for mass; the only major military advantage conscription offers. What do you propose to use that mass for?

Hence my question of: "is a "perpetual" war on terrorism a consequence of policy or is our policy a consequence of the enduring nature of the war?" IIt seems to me that as expensive as a perpetual war and national service may be, if it is a consequence of policy, then we have the option to change the policy in anticipation of the discussed problems. If, however, the perpetual war is imposed upon us, then what other choice do we have than to sustain the conflict?

I think 'perpetual' is a quite significant over statement and would submit that even if true, adding to the cost of said 'war' by going to an unnecessary added expense of conscription that will produce a large quantity of military personnel that are not needed is somewhat counterproductive.

True. That is why I suggested that in a national service institution, the combat arms be reserved for volunteers only.

Said combat arms are already served by volunteers -- what would you use the rest of the conscripted persons for?

The resources are there. It's a problem of distribution and use. It would require the federal government to reassert its power over the monetary system.

Perhaps, the issue is whether that's the best use of resources and if so why. To my knowledge, you have not yet explained why national service is a good idea in practical versus esoteric and idealistic terms.

That's a failure of leadership to define the enemy. That's a problem of context, and not of national service itself.

Not totally true. WW II conscripts served for the duration plus 6 months in a somewhat existential (certainly large and all encompassing by any definition) war. That aided in the development of military and battlefield competence significantly and there was little difference discernible in those area between draftees and regulars at the end of the war.

Since then, there has been no need for such harsh terms of service and the politicians left the two year, peacetime draft term in place. Can you provide any reason why they should not have done so?

I agree. Necessity is the last and strongest weapon. Under what conditions become necessary?

Fair question. Barring a significant miscalculation by one nation or another, a very slim possibility, I can foresee no conditions in this effort that would provide such necessity. You apparently do see such a necessity or possibility if not a probability; could I ask what, precisely, that is?

[jkm_101_fso]

For the record, I'm not in favor of a draft unless absolutely necessary.

1. I think one of the greatest mistakes of the Bush Administration was the failure to ask for "a call to service" on the evening of September 11, 2001. Not a draft; but a challenge to the young men and women across the nation to serve in the defense of their country. This request from the Commander-in-Chief would have resonated across the country. I absolutely believe that. It was the one opportunity, before the situation became partisan, to appeal to the youth of this nation to serve. Instead, the President told people to shop more. What a disappointment.

2. One constant we hear in society today regarding the War on Terror is that most the country is not personally invested in the war. It only affects the military and their families. Say what you will for the draft, but this would not be the case if a draft did exist. Everyone would have a vested stake in the war; their sons.

3. One of the greatest failures of the national Draft was deferments. We allowed the wealthy to be exempt. If the draft would someday be needed, we could not allow the sons from the wealthiest families to get out of it.

4. I graduated with 50 people in my high school class. Of the 23 males in my class, I cannot think of one that would have dodged a national draft. Sometimes, I don't think we give enough credit to the American people, particularly the youth. I have had many of my old classmates and friends tell me that "I would go" if they were drafted. I believe them. Granted, I think there would be some considerable resistance and possibly riots in the streets if the draft was brought back. Most of that would probably on the coasts. The majority of the nation would suck it up and do their duty. To caveat that, I believe that some of the young men we draft would be our best performers. Kids don't avoid military service because they can't hack it or don't have what it takes. It's just foreign to them and they tend to stay away from what they don't know.

5. I would argue that our country's sense of nationalism started to wane once we established the all-volunteer force and abolished the draft. Because no one HAS to sacrifice. No one bears any burden unless they choose too. I think this is simple logic; if there is no sacrifice, then there is no loyalty.

6. Although I think the all-volunteer force works just fine, a part of me wonders how well a partially-drafted force would work and if the nation would support it.

For those of you that are on the World Affairs Board, here is that discussion:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=47505

[Steve Blair]

4. I graduated with 50 people in my high school class. Of the 23 males in my class, I cannot think of one that would have dodged a national draft. Sometimes, I don't think we give enough credit to the American people, particularly the youth. I have had many of my old classmates and friends tell me that "I would go" if they were drafted. I believe them. Granted, I think there would be some considerable resistance and possibly riots in the streets if the draft was brought back. Most of that would probably on the coasts. The majority of the nation would suck it up and do their duty. To caveat that, I believe that some of the young men we draft would be our best performers. Kids don't avoid military service because they can't hack it or don't have what it takes. It's just foreign to them and they tend to stay away from what they don't know.

Gotta agree with this. It's all too easy to watch network TV and lose track of the average people in this country who actually make it work from one day to the next.

5. I would argue that our country's sense of nationalism started to wane once we established the all-volunteer force and abolished the draft. Because no one HAS to sacrifice. No one bears any burden unless they choose too. I think this is simple logic; if there is no sacrifice, then there is no loyalty.

I would disagree with this for a number of reasons. When the US was arguably at its most nationalistic (say the post Civil War period through 1940...avoiding the blips caused by the two world wars) we had NO draft. None. Zilch. Zero. And the military was an object of neglect and disdain in many quarters. It's better to say that we re-established the all-volunteer force, because that is what we've had for the bulk of our history. The draft has always been a fluke, and an unpopular one to boot. The level of sacrifice on the part of most citizens was very low, at least in the terms you're talking about.

Declining nationalism has, I think, more to do with Ken's social engineering in the education system, the constant self-flagellation that Americans seem so enamored with (it's one of our great strengths, but it can be taken too far from time to time), and the blurring of lines between our culture and others that rapid communication systems makes possible.

[jkm_101_fso]

I would disagree with this for a number of reasons. When the US was arguably at its most nationalistic (say the post Civil War period through 1940...avoiding the blips caused by the two world wars) we had NO draft. None. Zilch. Zero. And the military was an object of neglect and disdain in many quarters. It's better to say that we re-established the all-volunteer force, because that is what we've had for the bulk of our history. The draft has always been a fluke, and an unpopular one to boot. The level of sacrifice on the part of most citizens was very low, at least in the terms you're talking about.

Good point, however, the draft was still a possibility at those times. People weren't comfortable in the fact that there was no way their son would be sent to war, unlike now. Those two "blips" (two World Wars) reminded people during that period that sacrifice was still necessary, unlike today.

I do think there is much merit in Ken's points. I agree with you there.

[MikeF]

4. I graduated with 50 people in my high school class. Of the 23 males in my class, I cannot think of one that would have dodged a national draft. Sometimes, I don't think we give enough credit to the American people, particularly the youth. I have had many of my old classmates and friends tell me that "I would go" if they were drafted. I believe them.

FSO is on point. Back in 2003, I spoke to my younger brothers high school football team. Outside of the Army recruiter that walked the halls of the school, I think that I was the first soldier most had met. Of that team, one went to westpoint, another to annapolis, and three enlisted. They later confided that my talk encouraged them to serve.

The more I talk to my brother and his friends, the more I realize that they want to do something to serve, but they don't know what to do and they don't know how to do it.

They have never been asked.

v/r

Mike

[Steve Blair]

Good point, however, the draft was still a possibility at those times. People weren't comfortable in the fact that there was no way their son would be sent to war, unlike now. Those two "blips" (two World Wars) reminded people during that period that sacrifice was still necessary, unlike today.

I do think there is much merit in Ken's points. I agree with you there.

Actually the draft wasn't at all possible prior to 1914 or so, due in no small part to the furor caused by the riots during the Civil War. There was a lingering faith in the power of state volunteer units (and later the National Guard) to augment forces (in fact it was state troops and special volunteers that filled the ranks during the Spanish-American War).

I think you need to look deeper than the threat of the draft to the main causes for such 'volunteerism' (and mostly in state or special units...the Regulars usually remained understrength). The sense of Manifest Destiny, though mocked today, was still strong then. It was more of a social calling, combined with the 'thrill' of experiencing conflict.

Points to consider, at least. I've never quite bought into the draft as being either a natural state for the United States or that it was really a good motivator for service. The historical record seems to suggest strongly that there are other factors at work.

[Tom Odom]

Steve

I agree with your points that a volunteer military has been the "natural" state (my words) of the US military as a whole for most of its history.

But I would say to you that in the times when the Nation was in crisis --Civil War, WWI, and WWII--it ultimately served the nation well. The Civil War was very much a metamorphasis for the nation in more ways than just military service and in that regard does not fit in the same mold of a single nation responding to the call. Korea and Viet Nam I would suggest resumed and continued what WWII had put in place.

In discussion of whether we are in Long War that threatens our way of life then I agree with what others have said. The nation as in the nation's youth have not been asked. I see that as a sign of a lack of commitment on the behalf of those leading, not those who have not been asked or required to serve.

Tom

[Steve Blair]

In discussion of whether we are in Long War that threatens our way of life then I agree with what others have said. The nation as in the nation's youth have not been asked. I see that as a sign of a lack of commitment on the behalf of those leading, not those who have not been asked or required to serve.

Tom

Quite so. Having or not having a draft won't make much difference until those leading "grow a set."

[Ron Humphrey]

Anytime I hear someone seriously looking@ bringing back national service as mandatory requirements get very nervous

They probably want to do more than we should be.

[Ken White]

it served us well and the guys who got drafted mostly did their thing and did it well. There is no other way to get a large mass -- if that is militarily required -- of people into the fight.

Having said that and having lived around the Navy and Marines from 1932 until 1940 and from 1946 until 1950 with no draft and recalling not only service but civilian and national attitudes, Steve is also correct:

Actually the draft wasn't at all possible prior to 1914 or so, due in no small part to the furor caused by the riots during the Civil War. There was a lingering faith in the power of state volunteer units (and later the National Guard) to augment forces (in fact it was state troops and special volunteers that filled the ranks during the Spanish-American War).

I'd submit it was also not possible between the world wars; post WW II the Cold War -- and the way it was couched to the nation and the bi-partisan effort that it became -- made it possible until Viet Nam showed the political (NOT military) fallacy of the concept in less than major existential war in a democracy.

I think you need to look deeper than the threat of the draft to the main causes for such 'volunteerism' (and mostly in state or special units...the Regulars usually remained understrength). The sense of Manifest Destiny, though mocked today, was still strong then. It was more of a social calling, combined with the 'thrill' of experiencing conflict.

Exactly; I'm old, I can remember the US before the mantra of big government and dependency on the government (and thus an attitude of "it's not my yob...") became prevalent. Today's lack of involvement and interest in the Armed forces is fault of said Armed Forces as well as of sweeping general and not always beneficial societal change. If the Armed Forces were smart, they'd have an outreach program that relied on the Reserve Components -- but that would mean giving them another mission, more money and some clout and thus is unlikely...

Points to consider, at least. I've never quite bought into the draft as being either a natural state for the United States or that it was really a good motivator for service. The historical record seems to suggest strongly that there are other factors at work.

Agree strongly. The myth of 'national service' of some sort sounds good to some -- it does not sound at all good to others and its record world wide is mixed at best. Here, it has not fared well and is highly unlikely to do so. A draft is an effective military tool when needed; the rest of the time its better left alone as it creates more problems than it solves. It emphatically will not convince the majority of teenagers to be good citizens (said as a guy who's raised four of 'em who finally outgrew their teenage insouciance -- though I have not outgrwon mine... ).

[sapperfitz82]

I would agree and go one futher (a father of six that is).

The nature of our profession today (highly specialized and very complex) does not len itsself well to the short tours that are inherent in draft armies. This has only become true in the past few years. It will be even more so in the next few as we religiously leverage technology to make up for our average lack of testicular fortitude.

I would be in favor of such a mandatory service with say, the State Dept, compellees we'll call them. And they could do may be, FSO type work unless the qualify for something better. Degree holders only I think. Money wise, they wouldn't need much if they were living in a trailer in the desert. And if they're bitter, who cares! Exemptions for military service. SD could use the bodies, Lord knows that would bring an influx of talent.

Might free up some military too.

[sapperfitz82]

Should have said I would agree with Rob.

Actually errors abound in the previous post and I blame them entirely on medication and a lack of sleep.

[Uboat509]

I wouldn't say that lack of testicular fortitude is the main issue. Rather I would say that the military is simply reflecting the society from which it is drawn. As a society we have become entirely dependent on technology. We need some sort of high tech gear to enhance virtually every aspect of our lives. For crying out loud, in this country basic cable is considered poverty. If there is a problem then there MUST be a technological solution. It is only natural that that attitude would spill over into the military.

SFC W

In the interest of fairness it should be noted that I am in no way immune to this and have, in fact, already forgotten what it was like before I had my iPhone.

[120mm]

I wouldn't say that lack of testicular fortitude is the main issue. Rather I would say that the military is simply reflecting the society from which it is drawn. As a society we have become entirely dependent on technology. We need some sort of high tech gear to enhance virtually every aspect of our lives. For crying out loud, in this country basic cable is considered poverty. If there is a problem then there MUST be a technological solution. It is only natural that that attitude would spill over into the military.

SFC W

In the interest of fairness it should be noted that I am in no way immune to this and have, in fact, already forgotten what it was like before I had my iPhone.

When I read posts like this, I thank my father, grandfather and the old Germans I grew up with for raising me in the 19th century.

[AGBrina]

A national program, intended to encourage young people (say, 2 years' time between the ages of 18 and 27) to spend a period of their lives, that is devoted to the service of their country, is a good and wholesome thing; but I don't believe that it should be mandatory, especially in a Democracy. If the rewards for national service were tangible, and were of the kind that would continue to reward over the course of a lifetime, there should be plenty of volunteers for such service, even in a time of war.

What I have in mind is an "Affimative Action"-type program. "Veterans" of such service should be placed at the top of every list for positions within the Federal Government, including for politically-appointed positions. Further, there should critical review of staffing, and should be adverse consequences to the head of any department or to the elected official, whose proportion of personnel who have served in such a way, is below average.

If such a program/affirmative action plan could be enacted, I imagine that a significant number of the graduates of the finest schools, as well as most of those with political ambitions, will see national service as an increasingly attractive way to start their careers. It would be up to the Federal Government to apportion these volunteers according to the needs of the country. In times of war, the military could lay claim to a larger portion of these volunteers than would be needed when there is no conflict. Yet, because of the unique appeal of military service, there should be plenty of youths pereferring to serve in uniform rather than to serve as social workers.

[selil]

I'm a proponent of national service but as being suggested it is a band-aid on arterial bleeding.

We already have a socialized gerrymandering in excess of 13 years national service program in the k-12 public (and private) school system. The entirety of the k-12 system is about teaching citizenship, government organization, and indoctrinating students into the American experience through educational strategies.

To say that since the late 1960s that system is an abysmal failure as rampant nannyism policies of the 1960s (Think Dr. Spock and the welfare of children policies) through the creation in the 1970s of the national Department of Education (overbearing legislative non-representative of best practices in education oversight), into the post-psychic mumbling of momma Regan creating "just say no" and resulting in an entire probation and parole incarceration generation for doing what the Regans did in the 1960s. When you look at the "just feel good about yourself and the grades will come" policies of the 1990s and the wickedly illogical no child left behind (NCLB) of the current administration I'm only left with the radical impression that we are lucky we don't have more mouth breathing sycophantic ignorance oozing down the streets in baggy jeans and sideways caps.

If you want a stronger Army give children in public school a chance.

• Repeal or remove psycho socialistic feel good legislated mediocritization policies and make an education challenging and rewarding for its own sake.
• Reject mega-school processes and just in time business practices of centralized education and put the high schools back in the communities instead of making them "lords of the flies" prisons and warehouses of humanity.
• Repeal the pseudo Puritan-Victorian behaviorist moral platitudes and backdoor prohibition policies that has created the incarceration generation and resulted in a public school criminal insurgency.
• Repeal or sunset no-child-left-behind legislation that creates racist classist policies of discrimination based on funding practices that impact primarily disenfranchised minority members of society by decreasing funding on schools that can't afford the tools to be successful already (great logic in NCLB).
• Demand accountability in corrupt political institutions (think Chicago Public Schools as an example) that have more administrators (Marxist bourgeois class) than teachers (proletariat producers) and insure that everybody teaches or they don't have a job.
• Don't accept empire building from petty bureaucrats who hold your children hostage to standards and policies guaranteed to primarily create failure and does not make education a primary goal.

If you want a strong Army, a prepared citizenry, a healthy country, a free living while crime free society, and are willing to accept that the utopian myth of police state is a failed policy guidance you have to start with the beginning not the end. Freedom means that crime will occur, and educating people means they will question authority. There is no real reason for government to truly create a highly educated population. Requiring national service at the end of high school is the current equivalent of painting a turd.

Sure you can come up with examples of excellence, but you must look at the over all to see the direction of society. Down around the median and mean the outlook is pretty scary. The United States active duty military serving is around .5 percent (or 1.5 million) of the total American population (300 million aprox.). You want a strong military you need to raise that median/mean a LONG ways.

I don't think anybody in the military would accept centralized-control, centralized-execution as a viable military strategy in a continental battle for the hearts and minds of a diverse population. But, that is exactly what we have created with the last four decades of educational policy and specifically with NCLB. The children of today are NOT stupid. The children of today are as smart or smarter than anybody in previous generations (research suggests attention spans and long term memory are shrinking while puzzle solving and logic are increasing a dichotomy to be sure). It is a failure of the adults and policy makers to provide even an adequate education and a moral failing of society to stop watching television and make the next generation a priority instead of American Idol or Dancing with the Stars.

You want a strong Army you need a strong country. You get both of those with a strong citizenry. Fix education and you will fix the Army. It is a simple system. It is a complex political morass that will fix itself in time. Time is always the final arbiter of failure to take action.

[zenpundit]

The only thing I care to add to Sam's excellent - and sadly, all too accurate critique of the problems with our educational system - is that standards for prospective teachers should be markedly raised. When GPA requirements for those intended to teach 90% of the citizenry are invariably the lowest on campus of any professional school, that puts into place a negative feedback loop that guarantees the perpetuation of systemic mediocrity.

[BTW, that situ is not unintentional - plentiful, cheap and mediocre is an educational personnel policy of the states going back to at least the 1940's when they were expanding teacher's ed programs at state universities and land grant colleges from which many state universities grew. Probably good enough in 1938 when most of the population did not need to graduate High School to be gainfully employed, productive, citizens. Not so good in 2008]

[Cavguy]

The only thing I care to add to Sam's excellent - and sadly, all too accurate critique of the problems with our educational system - is that standards for prospective teachers should be markedly raised.

To attract high quality teachers, you must make the pay worthwhile. Most teachers make 30-40k a year, just above a manager at Wendy's. You can't expect world class instructors at that rate. Why would a smart college student choose a degree path where he could barely afford to raise a family on the pay?

I come from a family with a number of teachers, over the years each has left teaching for higher paying professions (all ed related), not because they hate the classroom, but because the money just wasn't worth the cost.

It's also easy to blame teachers, but numerous studies show that the home environment is the biggest predictor of academic success - all the studies showing that houses with lots of books have higher achievement, same for houses with college educated parents, etc. The moral is that families that value education will have kids who perform better. Frank fact is that many parents don't help their kid succeed at school, and blame the teacher/system.

[selil]

The moral is that families that value education will have kids who perform better. Frank fact is that many parents don't help their kid succeed at school, and blame the teacher/system.

You've identified the feedback cycle but that is changing. Uneducated people produce uneducated children, but children who are exposed to multiple positive sources at school, church, community easily overcome that. That is the purpose behind numerous inner city programs.

These are not easy issues and for every solution there are other huge problems that have to be identified. The only realistic solution is to by analogy handle the big rocks first, then the smaller ones, then the sand, and get to a better than we have currently solution.

This is a huge problem for society that directly impacts our ability to field an effective, resilient, technologically sophisticated Army.

[Ron Humphrey]

I've always found one of the best indicators as to what kind of a teacher your dealing with is the parent teacher conferences.

If what I hear is ( Ok here are the areas that (child X) is having problems with) then I start to cring.

If the conversation is more about ( Here are the areas that I need you to help your child with and heres how) Then I get that warm fuzzy they really give a darn feeling.