End the All-Volunteer Force

[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.