End the All-Volunteer Force

[AmericanPride]

Tom Ricks says we should end the all-volunteer force.

[Ken White]

Confirming my long held opinion of his twittishness (and military ignorance) he states:

The drawbacks of the all-volunteer force are not military, but political and ethical.

His proposed solution that political and ethical failure is to punish as many people -- himself not included -- as possible by reintroducing conscription.

While that's a typical US solution to a problem -- ignore the cause, attack the symptom, punish the innocent -- he's supposed to be one of the smart guys...

He continues:

One percent of the nation has carried almost all the burden of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the rest of us essentially went shopping. When the wars turned sour, we could turn our backs.

What would he have the rest of the nation do; sit at home and mope? People have choices, if they make poor choices, that becomes their problem and the 'fix' needs to address the target, the politicians and their lack of ethics, not the bystanders.

Contrary to this summation:

A draft would be good for our nation and ultimately for our military.

It would do nothing worthwhile for the nation, would not affect the attitude, politics or ethics of most American in the slightest degree and would in the long term be detrimental to the armed forces. Misuse of personnel is bad enough now; give the system a large influx of manpower and the waste would be incalculable. Our overall quality of training is bad enough now, catering for the 'fairness' and inclusiveness' that Congress would insist upon would only result in greater degradation...

[Entropy]

Mr. Ricks has written on this topic before and some of his arguments are problematic. First he points out that only 1% of Americans bear the burden for Iraq and Afghanistan. All true, but then he says that conscription "is the best way to reconnect the people with the armed services." Unless he's going to greatly expand end strength it will still be 1% bearing the burden and like today, most people won't know anyone who serves.

The big problem though, and the question Rick's doesn't answer (and he's been asked it before) is: How, given our political system, will that small portion of the population be chosen fairly considering there's over 4 million men and women who reach military age every single year?

[Rose]

Resuming conscription is the best way to reconnect the people with the armed services. Yes, reestablishing a draft, with all its Vietnam-era connotations, would cause problems for the military, but those could never be as painful and expensive as fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq for almost nine years. A draft would be good for our nation and ultimately for our military

I was basically raised by a Marine Officer who was nominated for the Medal of Honor (amongst other medals) for saving his entire platoon and who has been gone since 2009. He never talked about the war until I told him I was thinking about ROTC in college (in 07). After listening to what he told me about, what he had to do just to keep his men alive, I was speechless. I could have never imagined what he had to do and that he could have lived with that especially with the way he was treated once he returned home. He didn't have a choice about joining yet he did it. When he came back, he was treated like he was Hitler incarnate by his fellow citizens who he fought for.

He wanted me to go in of my own accord, and with my eyes open to what I could face. What I remember most is the hurt and betrayal that he still felt after all those years from those protestors; the pain of having a man in his unit who didn't want to be there commit suicide; having to deal with drug addicts who you couldn't trust to protect your back. I'm sorry, but I've heard stories like his way to many times since then to think that an enlisted force would be better than the AVF we have now.

I know his experience and that of others are just anecdotal, but from everything I've read on it, it seems to sadly have been been the norm for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of service men. I think Mr. Ricks should seriously reconsider that idea.

[JMA]

I think your man, Ricks, is trying to meet his quota of words published...

If his belief is that if you have a substandard conscript army then the politicians would be more wary of committing to war then he may have a point. Then again the avoidance of military humiliation does not seem to factor into the thinking of US politicians - think Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Afghanistan - to illustrate my point.

I have repeated many times that in the military it takes 15-20 years of commissioned service for an officer to reach the rank of Lt Col and command a battalion of 600 plus men. Yet there is no barrier (in terms of qualifications and experience) to become President of the US. The same with the various Secretaries and congressmen. This is probably the (main) source of America's problems.

When it comes to protecting the nation I go with the sentiments of George Orwell:

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

Now in order to achieve this first line of 'protection' we need to select the type of 'rough men' who will do their duty when called upon to do so... and not cobble together a force to reflect the composition of the nation and to hell with their competence as warriors... and to act as a brake on the whims of politicians.

Rather than avoiding (mostly small) wars because of the (almost) certainty of failure is it not more intelligent to have troops that are up to the task and use them more judiciously?

Conscription is or should be the last resort for a threatened nation.

[Fuchs]

It was already pointed out that the 1% stems almost entirely from the size of the occupation forces and their rotation, not from the volunteer system. This is the case-specific nonsense of Ricks.



Now the general nonsense, and I'll use the economic science toolbox to explain it:


When we spend money, we do so to motivate someone else to do something he or she would otherwise not do. Give me a haircut, allow me to leave the shop with the TV set, pay me money when my flat burned out. The amount of money needed is roughly proportional to the amount of motivation required. That's why in some countries you pay less if you bribe.

Price ~ motivation required

Now if you want a volunteer, you pay him the appropriate price for his motivation. That's fair, that's voluntary. No power advantage is used to coerce (except stop-loss etc).

If you hire a conscript, you don't need to pay him the appropriate price. instead, you can use a mix of inappropriately low price and power advantage, for coercion. This is the part about the loss of freedom through conscription.

There's also a major inefficiency involved that proves that conscription is inferior for the country in comparison to a volunteer force, at the very least until sovereignty is really at stake:
Whom do you get if you have a volunteer force? Most like the (able and) most easily motivated ones. It's like a reverse auction. You offer a price and the ones hired most easily agree, you raise and some more agree etc. In the end, you pay the marginal rate price - the price needed to motivate the last needed (wo)man. This means some are paid more than necessary to motivate them, but this waste stays in the society and doesn't account as harm done - it's just a transfer.
Compare this to conscription: You just grab some, and coerce whoever of that group is not motivated by the money. This does not include any mechanism for recruiting the most easily motivated ones. The amount of motivation based on coercion accounts for as harm done to the own society.
Even if you consider coercion + price as the sum of all mil personnel costs to society, you're still bound to arrive at the conclusion that conscription is more expensive to the society (because the volunteer system applies a technique to recruit the 'cheapest' personnel).


In short: Conscription is inferior to a volunteer force regarding general welfare


I found that most pro-conscription people are closet authoritarians, the kind of people that actually dislikes freedom and choice, no matter what they say.

[gute]

Confirming my long held opinion of his twittishness (and military ignorance) he states:His proposed solution that political and ethical failure is to punish as many people -- himself not included -- as possible by reintroducing conscription.

While that's a typical US solution to a problem -- ignore the cause, attack the symptom, punish the innocent -- he's supposed to be one of the smart guys...

He continues:What would he have the rest of the nation do; sit at home and mope? People have choices, if they make poor choices, that becomes their problem and the 'fix' needs to address the target, the politicians and their lack of ethics, not the bystanders.

Contrary to this summation:It would do nothing worthwhile for the nation, would not affect the attitude, politics or ethics of most American in the slightest degree and would in the long term be detrimental to the armed forces. Misuse of personnel is bad enough now; give the system a large influx of manpower and the waste would be incalculable. Our overall quality of training is bad enough now, catering for the 'fairness' and inclusiveness' that Congress would insist upon would only result in greater degradation...

Well said Ken. I find Ricks to be an elitist snob who has used members of the military to push his agenda. Also, if we had conscription then the military would have more people like him in its ranks - you know, educated, smarter, and morally superior. Like you said Ken the rules would not apply to him and as far as I know his sons have not served. Did anybody really know who Ricks was before we went into Irag in 2003.

I can see it - bring back conscription and unionize the military.

[Van]

I am conflicted on this one.

On the one hand, I agree that we are going the way of Rome when military service was no longer a requirement for a political career. And the nature of a military speaks volumes about the transition from constitutional republic to empire. This traces back to the way the citizens, for the most part, have been disconnected from the human costs of war, and the citizen's responsibility to bear arms for ones nation.

On the other hand, Ricks, who has never served in the military, decides that the right thing for the military is to reinstate the draft, long after he is past the age to serve. So he is quick to decide that young people should be coerced into going into harm's way in a fashion that he was never subjected to.

How convenient for Ricks. I'm sure this will help his journalist career.

[AmericanPride]

It would do nothing worthwhile for the nation

Ricks argues that it will make the people more engaged with the government and its activities, which he assumes will have a positive outcome. In general, more interest would produce higher accountability as the public demands greater fidelity on policies and the assumptions that underlie them.

would not affect the attitude, politics or ethics of most American in the slightest degree and would in the long term be detrimental to the armed forces.

I disagree. The draft in the Vietnam War produced a great amount of resistance to the conflict, which was started under false pretenses, prosecuted using questionable methods and strategies, and did not result in favorable outcome for the United States. The so-called "small wars" of the GWoT have been greatly detrimental to the armed forces, including record rates in suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic and sexual abuse -- not to mention, the inability to produce a favorable political outcome for either Iraq or Afghanistan.

All true, but then he says that conscription "is the best way to reconnect the people with the armed services." Unless he's going to greatly expand end strength it will still be 1% bearing the burden and like today, most people won't know anyone who serves.

End strength won't expand until we fix the gross budget irregularities and waste in the un-auditable Defense Department's spending practices.

He wanted me to go in of my own accord, and with my eyes open to what I could face. What I remember most is the hurt and betrayal that he still felt after all those years from those protestors; the pain of having a man in his unit who didn't want to be there commit suicide; having to deal with drug addicts who you couldn't trust to protect your back. I'm sorry, but I've heard stories like his way to many times since then to think that an enlisted force would be better than the AVF we have now.

It's not much better now. I've attended more memorial services for soldiers who killed themselves than those killed in combat -- and my unit had a number of soldiers washed out due to drugs and felonies, as well as some in regular legal or financial trouble. Don't let the military commercials fool you about the general quality of the service. These trends are clearly visible in the record suicides, domestic and sexual abuse crimes, divorces, and alcohol and drug abuse (and related offenses). So I really don't see how the AVF has produced a "better quality" service-member. People will be people regardless if they are drafted or recruited.

Rather than avoiding (mostly small) wars because of the (almost) certainty of failure is it not more intelligent to have troops that are up to the task and use them more judiciously?

Ricks' point is that that system isn't working out very effectively.

In short: Conscription is inferior to a volunteer force regarding general welfare

If we're concerned about the "general welfare" of soldiers, we wouldn't send them into unfavorable combat conditions regardless of how they were recruited into service.

bring back conscription and unionize the military.

It worked out quite well in the Civil War and the World Wars. Ricks' argument isn't that a conscript force would be inherently more effective than an all-volunteer force (and I don't think the historical record demonstrates clearly either way), but that a conscript force would be aware of government policies in a democratic system and we could therefore (possibly) avoid the problems of an relatively unaccountable policy elite committing the nation to costly wars using a culturally isolated unquestioning professional military force.

[Fuchs]

If we're concerned about the "general welfare" of soldiers, we wouldn't send them into unfavorable combat conditions regardless of how they were recruited into service.

General welfare is about the country (national) level.

The one and only really good reason for war is that at times (rarely) it's the lesser evil in comparison to a bad peace.
So in the end, all 'good' participation in warfare is about the general welfare (of the own country).

[AmericanPride]

I don't see how having a medicore conscript force is any worse than an unquestioning loyal professional force barely capable of fulfilling its missions and at the hands of nearly unaccountable policy elites.

[gute]

Ricks argues that it will make the people more engaged with the government and its activities, which he assumes will have a positive outcome. In general, more interest would produce higher accountability as the public demands greater fidelity on policies and the assumptions that underlie them.

This might be true.

I disagree. The draft in the Vietnam War produced a great amount of resistance to the conflict, which was started under false pretenses, prosecuted using questionable methods and strategies, and did not result in favorable outcome for the United States. The so-called "small wars" of the GWoT have been greatly detrimental to the armed forces, including record rates in suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic and sexual abuse -- not to mention, the inability to produce a favorable political outcome for either Iraq or Afghanistan.

The draft was well in place before Vietnam and our involvement lasted more than 10 years of which about 5-7 years was large scale ground combat. Casualty rates were much higher and I believe at one point injured and killed had reached 1,000 per month. Yet, with all those conscripts it still took us ten years get out. There is no doubt in my mind that if we were taking 1,000 killed and injured a week in Afghanistan and Iraq there would be a hell of a lot more people screaming for us to come home.

End strength won't expand until we fix the gross budget irregularities and waste in the un-auditable Defense Department's spending practices.

The military is big enough - matter of fact it probably should get smaller.

It's not much better now. I've attended more memorial services for soldiers who killed themselves than those killed in combat -- and my unit had a number of soldiers washed out due to drugs and felonies, as well as some in regular legal or financial trouble. Don't let the military commercials fool you about the general quality of the service. These trends are clearly visible in the record suicides, domestic and sexual abuse crimes, divorces, and alcohol and drug abuse (and related offenses). So I really don't see how the AVF has produced a "better quality" service-member. People will be people regardless if they are drafted or recruited.

How would you what's better - did you serve in a conscripted army? And the rates - higher than Vietnam, after Vietnam, after Korea, WWII - how do you know this?

Ricks' point is that that system isn't working out very effectively.

How does he know he never served.

If we're concerned about the "general welfare" of soldiers, we wouldn't send them into unfavorable combat conditions regardless of how they were recruited into service.

Agreed.

It worked out quite well in the Civil War and the World Wars. Ricks' argument isn't that a conscript force would be inherently more effective than an all-volunteer force (and I don't think the historical record demonstrates clearly either way), but that a conscript force would be aware of government policies in a democratic system and we could therefore (possibly) avoid the problems of an relatively unaccountable policy elite committing the nation to costly wars using a culturally isolated unquestioning professional military force.

Draft riots were common in the Civil War and many a well to do man paid others to fight in his place.

I agree with the comment about unaccountable policy elites, but many a volunteer soldier has questioned the policies. Conscripts questioned the policies during the Vietnam War, but they still served.

Senator Gary Hart wrote a book about going back to a militia - interesting read.

[gute]

I apologize for my garbled response and the fact I don't know how to respond to quotes.

[AmericanPride]

There is no doubt in my mind that if we were taking 1,000 killed and injured a week in Afghanistan and Iraq there would be a hell of a lot more people screaming for us to come home.

That's Ricks' point.

How would you what's better - did you serve in a conscripted army? And the rates - higher than Vietnam, after Vietnam, after Korea, WWII - how do you know this?

How does he know he never served.

Draft riots were common in the Civil War and many a well to do man paid others to fight in his place.

How would you know if you didn't serve during the Civil War (or did you?)?

I agree with the comment about unaccountable policy elites, but many a volunteer soldier has questioned the policies.

To what effect?

[Ken White]

Ricks argues that it will make the people more engaged with the government and its activities, which he assumes will have a positive outcome. In general, more interest would produce higher accountability as the public demands greater fidelity on policies and the assumptions that underlie them.

Having lived and served a good many years when the Draft was operating -- as opposed to Ricks and others -- My observation was that did not occur. Given general US and world societal changes since that time, I would anticipate that to be a very flawed argument.

I disagree. The draft in the Vietnam War produced a great amount of resistance to the conflict, which was started under false pretenses, prosecuted using questionable methods and strategies, and did not result in favorable outcome for the United States. The so-called "small wars" of the GWoT have been greatly detrimental to the armed forces, including record rates in suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic and sexual abuse -- not to mention, the inability to produce a favorable political outcome for either Iraq or Afghanistan.

Uh, okay -- however, I have no idea with what you disagree. I agree with what you wrote there but I do not see how that negates the quoted statements from me. You'll have to clarify that for me...

I do agree with your statements as said but my sensing is that the rates of suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic and sexual abuse are not as high as during Viet Nam though they are higher than was true in Korea. I question whether such problems are engendered by societal or military factors.

End strength won't expand until we fix the gross budget irregularities and waste in the un-auditable Defense Department's spending practices.

I don't think your comment answers or even addresses Entropy's point but you and he can sort that -- I'll only point out that the Congress is a firm supporter of DoD budget opacity in practice if not in speech. They like being able to hide things there and they do so with great abandon. IOW, the gross irregularities of Congress need to be fixed before any remediation of DoD can begin.

It's not much better now. I've attended more memorial services for soldiers who killed themselves than those killed in combat ... So I really don't see how the AVF has produced a "better quality" service-member. People will be people regardless if they are drafted or recruited.

Speaking as one who was there way back when and has a Son serving today as well as two others who did serve earlier, it did and has produced a "better quality" service member. If you think they're mediocre now, you shoulda been around in the 50s and 60s -- much less the 70s when there was a major drop in quality due to sociological tinkering and a targeted draft -- of marginally capable folks. Folks who survived in the system due to its over emphasis on fairness and time in service to become the senior NCOs who did not train the NCOs in your unit who allowed your troops to sink to that state...

Ricks' point is that that system isn't working out very effectively.

He's-- for once -- correct but he's still attacking the wrong target. All his suggestion will do is allow the inept Politicians to give inept Commanders more troops to waste on stupid endeavors. We need to fix the Pols and fix the Command competence problesm; a Draft will do neither.

If we're concerned about the "general welfare" of soldiers, we wouldn't send them into unfavorable combat conditions regardless of how they were recruited into service.

That's an interesting statement. It's also specious. While I agree that methods of incorporation are irrelevant; once incorporated, unfavorable combat conditions go with the job.

It worked out quite well in the Civil War and the World Wars.

If by well, you mean adequately, true. If by well you meant anything better than adequately, I believe if you do some in depth research, you'll find it isn't so.

Ricks' argument isn't that a conscript force would be inherently more effective than an all-volunteer force (and I don't think the historical record demonstrates clearly either way), but that a conscript force would be aware of government policies in a democratic system and we could therefore (possibly) avoid the problems of an relatively unaccountable policy elite committing the nation to costly wars using a culturally isolated unquestioning professional military force.

In reverse order, US history says you're wrong; the Draft did not -- absolutely did not -- have that effect in the Civil War, WW I, WW II or during Korea and the entire Cold War period. I submit that to believe today would be different is delusional -- at best...

Lastly, the world historical record does demonstrate the superiority of a volunteer force; the US record does not for a variety of reasons but primarily due to the fact that today's volunteer force is operating under personnel rules designed in 1917 for World War I, tweaked a bit for World War II, not tweaked at all for the volunteer aspect and operating under many arcane rules foisted by a bumbling Congress to insure 'fairness' and 'objectivity' in personnel assignment and selection. We have not had since WW I a pure professional force operating under professional rules, we have had and have today a hybrid force that is neither fully professional nor fully directed service.

We should try to remedy that before we decide to use mass punishment of the innocent to fix something that said punishment will not fix. As I wrote earlier, this is classic attack on symptoms as opposed to causes...

[Ken White]

On the one hand, I agree that we are going the way of Rome when military service was no longer a requirement for a political career. And the nature of a military speaks volumes about the transition from constitutional republic to empire. This traces back to the way the citizens, for the most part, have been disconnected from the human costs of war, and the citizen's responsibility to bear arms for ones nation.

While I can recall pre-draft, draft and post draft eras, the disconnection factor has existed more often than not. On balance, I do not find that worrisome.

However, the bit about a requirement for military experience as, if not a requirement, at least a desirable attribute for a political career is worrisome. I believe this is a factor resulting from the largely anti-military stance of the Academy nowadays and I think it speaks quite poorly of our educational establishment that such an attitude is endemic.

Of course, the chubby little retirees in Ekaterinebug who helped bring that about are understandably happy with themselves...

[Ken White]

I don't see how having a medicore conscript force is any worse than an unquestioning loyal professional force barely capable of fulfilling its missions and at the hands of nearly unaccountable policy elites.

On balance, there's probably little difference. However, when those unaccountable policy elites take a once competent semi-professional force and misuse it then the barely capable force is the result. It takes little thought to see that taking a mediocre conscript force and subjecting it to the same conditions would result in even worse performance.

Appropriate is the apocryphal tale of the very drunk Sailor and Mrs F.D.Roosevelt during WW II. Said she, "You're the drunkest sailor I've ever seen." He replied, "Yeah but tomorrow I'll be sober and you'll still be ugly." That barely competent batch of volunteers can be raised to sober heights -- that mediocre crop of Conscripts cannot be -- not in a Democracy; the Legislatures won't tolerate it...

That's Ricks' point.

Is it? I wonder. Didn't happen during either Korea or Viet Nam...

How would you know if you didn't serve during the Civil War (or did you?)?

His quoting of history is at least as good as thine...

Can't speak for the Civil war but for the last draft, those that were drafted mostly did their jobs to the best of their ability. Their biggest shortfall was that training had to be short and marginal to save their limited time to serve (in an existential war, that problem still exists). Today's volunteers (most are not really professionals...) suffer from the same truncated training syllabi because the Personnel and Training systems have not been adapted for the volunteer force -- nor has selection criteria but that's another thread.

To what effect?

In my observation to better effect by far than achieved by most of the drafted predecessors or the families of those draftees. Among many other things, the good effects achieved are shown by the fact that today's infantryman carries about $25K worth of gear about -- his Viet Nam era counterpart had about 10% of that amount -- and that's adjusted for inflation. The Army would never spend that much money equipping easily replaceable conscripts, they cost less to obtain and train so no need to waste money on trying to keep them alive with good, effective gear...

[Entropy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropy
All true, but then he says that conscription "is the best way to reconnect the people with the armed services." Unless he's going to greatly expand end strength it will still be 1% bearing the burden and like today, most people won't know anyone who serves.

End strength won't expand until we fix the gross budget irregularities and waste in the un-auditable Defense Department's spending practices.

First of all, why would we want to raise end strength? If ones' goal is to keep "unaccountable elites" from engaging in stupid wars then giving them more resources and manpower sounds like a counterproductive strategy to me.

Secondly, my point was to address Ricks' problem, which is that most Americans have no contact with the military. Again, if less than 1% of Americans serve it doesn't matter whether they are volunteers or conscripts - 1% is 1% and most Americans will continue to have almost no contact with the military. You can make more Americans aware and interested in the military by greatly increasing the size of the force which, obviously, conscription can do. That downsides to that are, however, pretty significant. Is it really worth it to raise a 5-10 million person military for some unquantifiable goal like making Americans more aware of and in tune with their nation's military?

Regarding "unaccountable elites" let's look at the record. Our current President ran on a platform of escalation in Afghanistan and ending the war in Iraq. He got elected and fulfilled both promises. Explain to me how that is unaccountable? Additionally, both these wars were specifically authorized by acts of Congress and Congress continues to support the remaining war, Afghanistan. Seems to me the accountability is pretty clear here. Ricks' seems to think that conscription would somehow generate more opposition to the war which would force policymakers to change policy. That might be true, but it hasn't historically been the case, as Ken's pointed out.

And, the "unaccountable elites" argument is one that should make us wary of conscription, not supportive of it. After all, if elites are unaccountable, then why would it be wise to give them access to a huge source of manpower via conscription? If elites are unaccountable, why should the people give them the authority to order involuntary servitude?

If the problem is to prevent the US from engaging in large, long wars of choice, then the answer, it seems to me, is not conscription, but an overall reduction in the active duty end-strength for both the Army and Air Force. Maybe you remember this quote from one of those elites: "What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

Of course, turning the bulk of the Army and Air Force into reserve formations is just as much a fantasy policy as conscription is, but at least it has a better chance of accomplishing Ricks' major goal.

[selil]

I would ask you to think about conscription slightly differently. As in this thread the echo chamber of "warrior culture" is loud and resoundingly echoing. Conscription would break the back of elitist soldiering and sailoring culture and perhaps a little bit of that chip many carry on their shoulder. The "we suffer so you can go to the mall" drags finger nails across the chalkboard of ideology a wee bit much.

Conscription is a nasty word balanced by "public service" a nice euphemism for conscription. Before, y'all professional military types get your back up think about the country and what it means to enforce service. Service does not necessarily have to be all bullets and blood, nor does it require substantive treasure to throw at the problem. Conscription would break the back of the elitist soldier culture and perhaps infuse it with a wee bit of empathy for civilians.

I get it. Being all military is a club. No problem. What are the ramifications of that?

[Steve Blair]

Ricks is a moron. Pretty simple.

Sam, I don't think conscription would create any empathy for civilians. You'd still have that core of professional military-types who will still feel entitled to comment on things they've never experienced (while still denying the right of others to do the same thing regarding them). It would just be more focused in the officer and professional NCO side of the house.

Conscription in this country never broke the back of the elitist soldier culture...and it had ample opportunity to do so between 1945 and 1972. I think if anything it had a hand in reinforcing the "useless civilian" idea within certain sectors of the military.

That disdain and/or disconnect has been there for as long as we've had a military. What some of the military elitists lose sight of now is that in many ways they're much better off than they have ever been before (in terms of pay and benefits, at least). What we're seeing now is a much larger all-volunteer military than we've had in the past. I think that makes the elite noises much louder than they were before.