End the All-Volunteer Force

[AmericanPride]

You are attaching a significance to a stat that it doesn't deserve. I understand that you depend on it to bolster your position, but that doesn't make it correct. The romantic attachment to the draft is just that...romantic in the old sense of the word and often unencumbered by objective analysis.

When you demonstrate that 8.5% is a statistically insignificant number instead of claiming it to be so, I'll take your objection about the Civil War into serious consideration.

And before we get too attached to those Boomers and their accomplishments, let's also take time to consider their role in the over-inflation of the US education system (to the point where a college degree is now the paid equivalent of a high school diploma and necessary two-year technical programs are often marginalized as "not good enough" when compared to the four-year degree).

This has more to do with the financialization of the US economy and the movement of manufacturing and other labor-intensive jobs overseas.

How many are being pushed into the military to take advantage of various aid programs spawned by the draft in order to finance their own society-mandated post-secondary education?

Not much, I presume, given that the majority of recruits come the South and the South consistently ranks in the lowest of collegiate educational attainment. Nor are college costs strongly related to demand -- skyrocketing costs outpaced inflation since 1985 (and only after US wages started to stagnate) because of increased administrative costs. The education problems in this country were not caused by conscription.

[Van]

As I read the back and forth about the merits and ills of conscription, I think we are not discussing a related issue that would sabotage the drive towards a bureaucratic solution (legislating the draft, and telling the DoD "just make it happen").

75+% of the draft age people in the US are unfit for military service; "physically unfit, have not graduated from high school, or have a criminal record".

If this trend continues, we may be forced to initiate conscription, just to make numbers, but the conscription would be focused on the ones who are good enough. Consider the political ramifications of trying to draft the the kids who make all the criteria. Also, many kids would consider a draft incentive to make themselves unfit for service, thereby adding to our problems.

The diligent workers of COMINTERN and their useful idiots in academia, media, and marketing have succeeded. Military service is stigmatized by those who benefit most from it, and the people with the most to gain from service are most likely to be ineligible (look at health, education, and crime statistics broken out by economic strata).

[Van]

How many are being pushed into the military to take advantage of various aid programs spawned by the draft in order to finance their own society-mandated post-secondary education?

Steve, as an Army ROTC instructor (University of Hawaii Warrior Battalion), I would like to point out another piece of this.

With my freshmen, it usually isn't the kids, it's their parents pressuring them to chase the ROTC scholarship. Close to 20% of my students came to the class because mommy and daddy made it clear that this was their only choice (yes, some are only here for the scholarship and it was their idea, but they are rare).

They are pushed in by their parents. If mommy and daddy were a little more thoughtful, they might have noticed the swarms of other means to the ends.

[AmericanPride]

75+% of the draft age people in the US are unfit for military service; "physically unfit, have not graduated from high school, or have a criminal record".

That is a serious issue that you raise -- and it's one of the reasons why the middle class, with generally higher rates of education and lower rates of criminal activity, bears the burden of military service (the rich, obviously, have better opportunities available elsewhere). But I don't think the problem is inherently the reliance on the middle class for military service (and funding, incidentally), but the fact that the military class is shrinking, and with it, the number of eligible recruits. China, for example, while it has legal requirement for conscription, doesn't need it for its military requirements because it has a sufficiently large demographic from which to recruit. So, we can expand the middle class to provide a larger pool of eligible recruits, discard standards to increase recruiting, or institute a draft (based on manpower or skills requirements).

[AmericanPride]

With my freshmen, it usually isn't the kids, it's their parents pressuring them to chase the ROTC scholarship. Close to 20% of my students came to the class because mommy and daddy made it clear that this was their only choice (yes, some are only here for the scholarship and it was their idea, but they are rare).

An interesting side-note is that next to young adults, a great percentage of student debt is held by seniors, presumably because they co-signed for their children and grandchildren who face ridiculous tuition fees. Given that the middle class is shrinking between across-the-board increases in prices and stagnating incomes, it should come as no surprise to anyone that more parents are pushing their kids to seek scholarships, ROTC or otherwise. I think a significant concern here is that military service is becoming increasingly insulated to one class (mostly middle class, and mostly from the south, therefore conservative and Christian).

[Steve Blair]

When you demonstrate that 8.5% is a statistically insignificant number instead of claiming it to be so, I'll take your objection about the Civil War into serious consideration.

Based on your previous record, I'm not sure if you will. But...if you want to look at a purely numeric comparison, a quote from a review of Geary's "We Need Men" is illustrative of how the Civil War draft worked:

In March 1863, the federal government elected to centralize and normalize conscription. The process adopted by the government divided conscription areas by congressional district. If a district failed to reach the quota number of volunteers, a draft lottery was then initiated. Once conscripted, the potential draftee underwent a series of examinations to determine medical fitness and the existence of hardship. Upon passing these requirements, the draftee had ten days to hire a substitute, pay a three-hundred dollar commutation fee, or join the army. Of the 292,441 names drawn during 1863, about 190,000 men were waived due to medical disability or hardship, 52,000 paid the commutation fee, and about 26,000 provided a substitute. In the end, 9,811 men, or three percent of men became conscripts.(emphasis mine)

Geary also has an article in Civil War History (Sep1986, Vol. 32 Issue 3, p208-228) that provides a nice overview of writing on this issue.

A well-researched article on the impact of the draft in two Wisconsin communities can be found here. One line in his concluding paragraph is interesting: "I believe it is important to note again that the purpose of the draft was to stimulate volunteerism through the threat of conscription."

I don't have time to dig into it right now, but in order to really determine if your 8.5% (which might be high when compared to the number who actually reported to regiments as opposed to paying commutation or simply not showing up) was significant you'd have to determine where they went. Considering that the draft didn't gain major momentum until late 1863-early 1864, if the draftees stayed in essentially home guard units their real impact would be minimal at best (showpieces for governors wanting to show their state's determination to end the war). If they went to form new state regiments, their impact would again depend on where they served. A cursory search doesn't turn up much regarding this flow of personnel, but that's where you'd have to start to determine if that slice was significant. My take at this stage is that it was not significant. Even the unsourced Wikipedia section on this states "Of the 168,649 men procured for the Union through the draft, 117,986 were substitutes, leaving only 50,663 who had their personal services conscripted." There's not much difference between a volunteer for bounty and a paid substitute.

[Steve Blair]

Steve, as an Army ROTC instructor (University of Hawaii Warrior Battalion), I would like to point out another piece of this.

With my freshmen, it usually isn't the kids, it's their parents pressuring them to chase the ROTC scholarship. Close to 20% of my students came to the class because mommy and daddy made it clear that this was their only choice (yes, some are only here for the scholarship and it was their idea, but they are rare).

They are pushed in by their parents. If mommy and daddy were a little more thoughtful, they might have noticed the swarms of other means to the ends.

I agree. I work with ROTC as well (have for going on seven years now) and see the same thing. That to me ties back to the societal pressure to attend college. Once that decision is made for them (in many cases), they find out that they have to seek other sources of funding. Those same parents who pushed them into college won't help with tuition but still claim them as dependents, hosing them for financial aid consideration. So they look at loans or ROTC.

[AmericanPride]

Oh, Van, one last note: aside from the clear economic advantages gained from health-care reform, the other thing to consider is the impact on the eligibility of young middle class men for military service. This problem received some media attention, last year, making it clear that health and education reform are both essential to maintaining and improving military readiness.

[AmericanPride]

Based on your previous record, I'm not sure if you will.

I'm not really concerned about my reputation on a fairly anonymous online message board.

"In March 1863, the federal government elected to centralize and normalize conscription. The process adopted by the government divided conscription areas by congressional district. If a district failed to reach the quota number of volunteers, a draft lottery was then initiated. Once conscripted, the potential draftee underwent a series of examinations to determine medical fitness and the existence of hardship. Upon passing these requirements, the draftee had ten days to hire a substitute, pay a three-hundred dollar commutation fee, or join the army. Of the 292,441 names drawn during 1863, about 190,000 men were waived due to medical disability or hardship, 52,000 paid the commutation fee, and about 26,000 provided a substitute. In the end, 9,811 men, or three percent of men became conscripts.(emphasis mine)"

Now this is the kind of response that I was expecting from people of this site's caliber. And the figures for 1864?

A cursory search doesn't turn up much regarding this flow of personnel, but that's where you'd have to start to determine if that slice was significant. My take at this stage is that it was not significant.

I agree, which is why I have gone no further than claiming that 8.5% of Union soldiers were conscripts, and on the basis of that figure alone, draftees had a substantial impact on the war's outcome.

A well-researched article on the impact of the draft in two Wisconsin communities can be found here. One line in his concluding paragraph is interesting: "I believe it is important to note again that the purpose of the draft was to stimulate volunteerism through the threat of conscription."

That's an interesting finding, and demonstrates the utility of the draft in more than simply directly fulfilling manpower requirements.

[Steve Blair]

Now this is the kind of response that I was expecting from people of this site's caliber. And the figures for 1864?



I agree, which is why I have gone no further than claiming that 8.5% of Union soldiers were conscripts, and on the basis of that figure alone, draftees had a substantial impact on the war's outcome.

You can dig up 1864 on your own, I expect. And I repeat that 8.5% (at most) does not mean a substantial impact. If you check out the linked article, it goes into much more detail regarding the situation in Wisconsin (a strong Union state, as were most of what were then the Western states).

[AmericanPride]

You can dig up 1864 on your own, I expect

I asked out of curiousity, not because annual numbers are relevant to my argument (they aren't). Bottom-line, up to 8.5% of soldiers were drafted; even if a substantial number were paid substitutes, those are still individuals inducted through the draft system. If we really want to get into the nuts and bolts, we can find out where those draftees (or their paid replacements) ended up during the conflict. But I can see you are just as content with simply assuming they were insignificant to the conflict as I am in assuming they were significant. And that's fine. The most relevant measurement of conscription's benefits is during 1940 - 1973.

[AmericanPride]

In 1991, Cato Institute's Doug Bandow made an argument about America not needing conscription. In it, he asserts:

Although public dissatisfaction eventually ended American involvement in Vietnam, it took years for political opposition to build, a period during which tens of thousands of Americans died needlessly. An AVF might have ended the war far sooner, since young people would simply have stopped volunteering.

I wonder how the numbers bear out in recruitment/retention figures compared to the popular opinion of the conduct of the Iraq War II. But then again, is there really any direct correlation between recruitment/retention and public opinion? After all, the military burden of the last 10 years has been carried heavily by one demographic and is not necessarily reflective of national opinions. And low retention levels ended up only affecting recruitment standards and enlistment bonuses.

Of course, for Bandow's argument to be valid on this point, he must assume that ending the conflict on unfavorable terms is preferable to having a draft system in place (which says alot about his view on national interests).

Bandow eventually concludes:

Our prob- lem today is not a military filled with those who want to be there but a political leadership willing to risk war for peripheral interests. A draft cannot change that. If it could, we would not have had to construct a memorial to 58,000 people who died in a purposeless war two decades ago.

I don't think Ricks (or myself) would argue that an all-volunteer military is inherently problematic, but instead that it carries risks of it own, some of which are very costly and questionable and could be addressed by an alternative system.

[carl]

With my freshmen, it usually isn't the kids, it's their parents pressuring them to chase the ROTC scholarship. Close to 20% of my students came to the class because mommy and daddy made it clear that this was their only choice (yes, some are only here for the scholarship and it was their idea, but they are rare).

They are pushed in by their parents. If mommy and daddy were a little more thoughtful, they might have noticed the swarms of other means to the ends.

What is wrong with that? I know some of the famous American generals and admirals of the past went to the service academies because it is the only way they could get a college education. I know a guy who went to the AFA because that was the only way he could afford to go to college. If mommy and daddy made it clear that it was ROTC scholarship or nothing, could it not be because mommy and daddy have a clearer idea of the family finances? I don't think there are swarms of other means for a student who is not top flight from a family of middling means, barring student loans which are sort of like Uncle Sam as Guido the loan shark.

[carl]

As has been noted several times here, the draft isn't coming back anytime soon. It is simply not normal for a US not involved in a really big war.

But that still leaves the problem, if it is one, of the American populace being disconnected from the military, not the military being disconnected from the American populace. The Americans as a whole can't be forced into reconnecting or sharing the sacrifice or whatever. They have to want to do it. Parts now seem more apt to serve than others, there are regional differences in rates of service and especially class differences in rates of service. Those differences are volitional. If those differences are to lessen no gov policy can do it. It has to be the decision of the people. Some things gov can't do.

The thing that I think is most problematical about the class differences in service is how the elite classes, those that go to the top 105 colleges the ivies especially, those that comprise the GS triple digits, the corporate board members, the media elites etc, don't serve hardly at all. They know nothing practical at all about the military or much about military history. Yet they are the ones who direct the military to go off and make war. And they are the ones who buy the latest tech or managerial fad like the revolution in military affairs. That is a problem, but again, one that gov can't solve.

[AmericanPride]

But that still leaves the problem, if it is one, of the American populace being disconnected from the military, not the military being disconnected from the American populace. The Americans as a whole can't be forced into reconnecting or sharing the sacrifice or whatever. They have to want to do it. Parts now seem more apt to serve than others, there are regional differences in rates of service and especially class differences in rates of service. Those differences are volitional. If those differences are to lessen no gov policy can do it. It has to be the decision of the people. Some things gov can't do.

The thing that I think is most problematical about the class differences in service is how the elite classes, those that go to the top 105 colleges the ivies especially, those that comprise the GS triple digits, the corporate board members, the media elites etc, don't serve hardly at all. They know nothing practical at all about the military or much about military history. Yet they are the ones who direct the military to go off and make war. And they are the ones who buy the latest tech or managerial fad like the revolution in military affairs. That is a problem, but again, one that gov can't solve.

Government policy, or the lack thereof in some cases, has a direct bearing on military readiness, culture, and capabilities.

This report concludes that the majority of military recruits originate from middle income neighborhoods. Barriers to entry (mostly education and criminal records) preclude many of the underclass, while the upper class have better things to do with their time (and lives). This does not mean that the middle class are any more patriotic or willing to serve -- it just means, they are the only ones eligible. This is problematic because (1) the middle class is shrinking while (2) the middle class also bears the greatest relative tax burden as the upper class and corporations have numerous tax practices available to reduce their effective rate. This is on top of stagnating wages since the late 1970s and wildly inflated costs in education, health-care, and food and fuel prices. This occurred simultaneously with the explosion of wealth and assets held by the upper 1 - 5% and a gradual decline in their top tax rate (from 90+% in the 1940s to theoretically 35% today).

Meanwhile, the defense budget continues to increase because its acquisition, maintenance, and personnel budgets grow without restraint. Of course, the solution for the Pentagon and Congress is not to enforce financial accountability and restrain wasteful spending, but to cut active duty end-strength, which means those same self-selected white southern-conservative middle class recruits, with their love of beer, fishing and Nascar, will bear a greater burden (the JCC estimates the world is more dangerous today than ever before; some good the GWoT did then...) while becoming increasingly isolated from the general public. That report I cited at the beginning writes off the Southern emphasis in the military's demographics as "Southern military tradition" but I think it more has to do with Southern states consistently ranking in the bottom rung in educational attainment and economic opportunity and its general conservative bent.

It's clear by these facts and figures that government policy (and in many cases, the lack thereof) has produced a situation in which we have a culturally isolated professional military force that is not representative of the national whole (Asians in particular are underrepresented). The draft is one method of correcting this demographic problem.

EDIT: There is also a general overlap between voting patterns and military recruitment (by state), and a general unwillingness across party lines to seriously address the financial irregularities of the DoD that lead directly to self-selecting recruitment practices within a shrinking pool of willing and eligible recruits. Not only are young Americans less likely to be physically fit, but they're also more likely to be non-White or mixed race, and to live in the western US. This is not to say these groups of people do not serve, but general trends indicate that they do so in smaller numbers (and they're less likely to vote Republican, the "national security" party). The problem I see, apart from the one carl identified about class division, but also cultural division since I very much doubt military culture is going to easily change in response to demographic trends in the US.

[carl]

Government policy, or the lack thereof in some cases, has a direct bearing on military readiness, culture, and capabilities.

Absolutely true. But that was not my main point. Gov policy cannot really change American civilian cultural attitudes toward the military and military service. That is more of a long term problem in my view, especially the attitudes of the elites.

This report concludes that the majority of military recruits originate from middle income neighborhoods. Barriers to entry (mostly education and criminal records) preclude many of the underclass, while the upper class have better things to do with their time (and lives). This does not mean that the middle class are any more patriotic or willing to serve -- it just means, they are the only ones eligible.

That is not true. The middle class are not the only ones eligible. The upper classes are eligible, they choose not to join up. They may not a remunerative recruiting target but they are eligible. So they are definitely less willing to serve.

It's clear by these facts and figures that government policy (and in many cases, the lack thereof) has produced a situation in which we have a culturally isolated professional military force that is not representative of the national whole (Asians in particular are underrepresented). The draft is one method of correcting this demographic problem.

There is cultural isolation but I don't know if that is such a problem, oil field workers may be culturally isolated too but that is no great concern. People who have an interest in the war and fighting may have similar interests in other things too. The critical thing is will they obey the civilian gov and there is no evidence at all that I know of that they won't.

If there are underrepresented demographic groups in the military it is because the people in those groups aren't interested in war and fighting. Drafting them won't make them any more interested. It will just make them resentful draftees.

The draft isn't going to happen and if it were, the elites would make sure that their offspring wouldn't have to go. The elites may be interested in elected office and high number GS service but not in war and fighting. A draft won't make them interested.

[Ken White]

Ken, and the general consensus it seems, assigns this problem to outdated personnel and training systems, and various Congressional policies; though, at the same time, it is pointed out that Congress has also dramatically increased the amount of money spent on the services, with a significant portion invested in training, personnel, and acquisition.

Obfuscation will get you no where

The American solution to any problem is to throw many at it to avoid making the hard choices to actually fix the things. Congress throws money not at training but at 'things' that are made by people, preferably in multiple districts.

So where is, according to Ken, the "world historical record" that demonstrates the "superiority" of the all-volunteer force? Every major US conflict was won with a substantial number of conscripts. The US was engaged in less conflict (and at less cost per conflict!) with conscription than without. And, lastly, the powers of Congress were substantially stronger relative to the President in regards to war-making in the most recent draft era than with today's all-volunteer force.

In order, look at the competence of any of the British Commonwealth all volunteer forces over the years to include in wars and assess their performance . In particular, assess their performance in the early stages of wars and then again later after they resorted to conscription. Do not talk of 'world' norms then cite US counterfactuals -- that's reobfuscating...

Also, trying to equate societal and political changes worldwide and the effects those have on events with the presence or absence of conscription is a little disingenuous.. As for Congress -- is that current shortfall a result of a lack of conscription or of a political climate that discourages truly competent persons from running all too often; is their seeming loss of power actual or perceived and, if real (which I doubt -- abdication is abandonment, not loss...) are other factors at play in that?

With conscription, more people would be directly involved in foreign policy process of the country. That would place conflict as a primary voter issue right next to jobs and social programs, which translates into greater pressure on the political parties (first at the local level) to address whatever issue arises. During an election year, this is accomplished through the primaries, and for the House, this occurs every other year. It may not have prevented the Iraq War, but it would have significantly influenced Congressional oversight and interest in its methods and outcomes (of course I'm pressuming that Congressional oversight has a net positive effect...)

History does not validate much of that; while it is theoretically correct, in actuality back in the day, few voters got exercised about much in things military. They affected defense, military and foreign policy little if at all. Truman went to Korea with out even asking Congress -- at least G. W. Bush asked; Johnson escalated Viet Nam farbeyond any common sense measure and neith the Voters or Congress made much fuss -- until the Draft started biting kids who had never been told what to do in their lives before they hit the magic age.

You claimed that a new draft would be "wasteful" and "damaging" to the United States. I'm only pointing out that middle class Americans were economically and politically better off during the most recent draft period than during the years since, which challenges the idea that a new draft would somehow be an unmitigated disaster to America and Americans.

Heh. Correlation does not imply causation, much less prove it...

It's relevant to the extent that there is no correlation between maintaining an all-volunteer force and the general welfare or security of the country

...does it??? You're reaching, there.

How does this compare to the fact that war has now become an exclusively middle class burden, both in service and in financing?

Probably because Congress has made sure that almost half the nation pays no income taxes and because the academically endowed eschew dirty, relatively thankless work as beneath them.

It is noteworthy that American Pride spends a great deal of time touting the merits of both the Civil War and WW II -- both large existential conflicts which literally call for conscription and masses of mediocrity. In those cases, the Draft worked and it also worked in Korea and Viet Nam -- even if the Army did not prosecute either war at all well. It's also worth mentioning that the senior leadership of those Armies had WW II experience and thus, a conscript Army mentality -- a problem that the US Army today still evinces. Lacking major existential war, a small professional -- not volunteer; the two types are not synonymous -- Army will better serve the nation and if done right, will be cheaper and far more fair than forced 'equality.'

Compulsory service is a political dream to solve the problems of society (and to insure the connected can avoid it and, ideally, those problems...). Unfortunately, like most socialistic dreams, every time it's been tried, it has failed. Instead of attacking the hard issue, political and military reform adherents flog conscription as an easy fix -- it is not. It isn't easy and it will not fix but rather will exacerbate the principal problems; it simply gives the system more bodies (deliberately chosen word) to play with.

This is a 'solution' that has not achieved the aims espoused by its adherents in the past and is unlikely to do so in the future. 'Fixing' the armed forces is not the answer to correcting a significant slide and failure in US societal norms. Conscription attacks the symptom and not the problems which are simply to improve training, military education and far more importantly, the political milieu.

[Ken White]

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.

Elitist 'soldiers' and 'sailors' may drag their nails across your chalkboard all too often. They can be awfully annoying -- and the true and solid practitioners of the trades (they are not professions...) get as annoyed or more so than thee. They not only do not do that, they have little use for those that do. You may be hanging around the wrong crowd...

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.

Good point. I have thought about it, long and hard for many years and on balance am convinced that involuntary servitude is simply wrong (peace or war...). We fought a war about that IIRC.

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.

Ah, I see. The issue is not military proficiency, heaven forbid. Not about providing needed but costly services at cut rates -- nor is it even improving citizenship and / or the civil / military relationship. It is about breaking "...the back of the elitist soldier culture" and providing empathy for civilians.

Xeyli jalebi. I've been a civilian far longer than I was a Soldier and I am empathetic toward them. Also sympathetic. When I retired, they told me I wouldn't like it (they got that right...) and that no one was in charge. They got that wrong -- EVERYbody's in charge. Thus my sympathy...

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

Huh? Well no, not really but even if you were right, what, indeed are the ramifications? Being an Academic is belonging to a club, so's being a Lawyer, Doctor, Carpenter, Law Enforcement Officer, Freight Conductor or Orchestra Conductor or dozens of other things including the ABA (any one of the four or five...), NEA, FOP or UAW. All those type can and often do belong to several varied clubs. Doesn't pass the 'So what' test IMO.

(And when the Doctors can stack the deck to keep their fees high and competition stifled, don't point out the services are different because they can do damage. I won't even mention SWAT teams... ).

[Entropy]

The military "culture" is increasingly a southern-Christian-conservative culture with a fantasy "warrior culture" at odds with most demographics of American society (with the exception of the southern-Christian-conservatives that enlist in large numbers).

and

(If the current military demographic is any indication, it will be on beer, fishing, Nascar, and strip clubs).

and

Of course, the solution for the Pentagon and Congress is not to enforce financial accountability and restrain wasteful spending, but to cut active duty end-strength, which means those same self-selected white southern-conservative middle class recruits, with their love of beer, fishing and Nascar, will bear a greater burden

and

I think it more has to do with Southern states consistently ranking in the bottom rung in educational attainment and economic opportunity and its general conservative bent.

Ignorant stereotyping aside, the latest statistics show that 36% of the 18-24 year-old population reside in the south while 41% of recruits come from the south. So the demographic bias to the south is a whopping 5%. That 5% bias could come from any number of factors, not just those you choose to believe. In addition to the bias, the military is more southern because more young people live in the south than other regions.

Hmm, this is interesting:

After WW2, when millions of young men were demobilized and sent home (85% of whom were draftees), they didn't just provide a baby boom. They were also provided financial and educational benefits that lead to the post-war economic boom, in turn financing today's infrastructure projects and social programs (including the origins of the internet). In totality, this led to higher education rates and performance, higher employment rates with higher quality jobs, higher wages across the entire class spectrum, more effective tax code, and faster technological development. Not to mention the impetus for integration of minorities and women in politics, the economy, and society (and even the school lunch program) as a result of the war's demands and continued requirements of national security.

Apparently I should thank conscription for the internet instead of Al Gore. Who knew?

Anyway, I guess you think military spending is great, right? After all, look at all the cool things it produced, which you helpfully listed! But wait, what about this:

Every dollar spent on defense is a net drain on the economy, with the opportunity cost being the higher returns in economic activity and job growth that could have been gained by investing in education, infrastructure, health, or technology.

So, uh, how do you reconcile that?

I've only pointed out that these things were better during the most recent draft period than after it with the all-volunteer force.

I suppose I could point out irrelevant things that were worse when the draft was implemented. There certainly is a huge list to choose from and by doing so I could imply that the AVF is clearly better without having to provide actual evidence or a coherent argument. But that would be pointless and dishonest or ignorant, wouldn't it?

[AmericanPride]

In order, look at the competence of any of the British Commonwealth all volunteer forces over the years to include in wars and assess their performance . In particular, assess their performance in the early stages of wars and then again later after they resorted to conscription.

Yes -- let's look at that one as well. The British military record is no more spectacular than any other European power, with or without conscription, and its history includes a mix of notable victories and defeats. This is unchanged whether we are talking about pre- or post- Napoleonic Era, or pre- or post- World Wars. I'm not concerned about small unit performance as I am with definitive and favorable terminations of conflict.

Also, trying to equate societal and political changes worldwide and the effects those have on events with the presence or absence of conscription is a little disingenuous.

There's a clear, documented relationship between the US draft 1940 - 1973 and American prosperity in that era. There's also a clear relationship between present US defense spending with the all-volunteer force and the political and economic consequences of military policy.

As for Congress -- is that current shortfall a result of a lack of conscription or of a political climate that discourages truly competent persons from running all too often; is their seeming loss of power actual or perceived and, if real (which I doubt -- abdication is abandonment, not loss...) are other factors at play in that?

It's a lack of political will fueled in part by public apathy, which in turn is a result of the gradual separation of Americans from the policy process and its consequences.

Johnson escalated Viet Nam farbeyond any common sense measure and neith the Voters or Congress made much fuss -- until the Draft started biting kids who had never been told what to do in their lives before they hit the magic age

That's the point of Ricks' argument.....

Compulsory service is a political dream to solve the problems of society (and to insure the connected can avoid it and, ideally, those problems...). Unfortunately, like most socialistic dreams, every time it's been tried, it has failed.

Socialism is the about the social ownership of the means production, which has nothing to do with conscription. Governments of all kinds, most of them not socialist, have used conscription at one point or another. Nice gimmick though.

'Fixing' the armed forces is not the answer to correcting a significant slide and failure in US societal norms.

It's not American society spending trillions of dollars and producing little in the way of favorable and definitive political outcomes for America's conflicts. Since 1973, it's been the all-volunteer force. The AVF has had mixed results in winning America's wars. So yes, it is the military, not American society which the military serves, that needs fixing.