It's NASCAR not Nascar! That's Important
It's not bias, it's fact. The South has consistently had higher enlistment rates than the rest of the country. Six of the top ten states were in the South. And yes, beer, fishing, and Nascar are more likely among this demographic than the rest of the nation. The recruitment bias is because recruits are more likely to come from rural areas, of which a greater proportion is in the South (and then West). Rural areas also have fewer job opportunities.
Yup.Originally Posted by Entropy
Depends on the circumstances.Originally Posted by Entropy
I have previously provided in another post the connection between the latest draft period and US economic productivity. So, you wonder, what is the difference between the 1940 - 1973 era and the post 1973 era? It's quite simple: unlike the draft period where trillions of dollars were spread across multiple industries and invested in millions of people, today's defense economy concentrates spending in a few large corporations that produce products with narrower applications. So while it is very profitable for those companies and their investors, on the whole it is wealth destroying, with the opportunity costs being the returns that may have been gained had the funds been invested elsewhere.Originally Posted by Entropy
Actually, I've laid out a very clear argument about the benefits of the most recent draft period compared to the costs all-volunteer force since then.Originally Posted by Entropy
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
Without small unit performance there will be no definitive terminations of conflict. As for favorable, that too often lie in the realm of the Politicians -- and conscription won't fix that.
More pointedly, did you miss the word Commonwealth in there?There's a clear documented relationship between government policies, societal norms and prosperity in that era. The relationship of conscription is that it existed, no more.There's a clear, documented relationship between the US draft 1940 - 1973 and American prosperity in that era...I'm not at all sure it 's clear but what is emphatically clear is that Congress not only has abrogated its responsibility with respect to the Armed Forces and wars but to virtually all its fiscal responsibilities as well. Conscription won't fix that and, based on the historical record is highly unlikely to induce broader citizen involvement.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.Said separation dearly loved by the governing classes who have tacitly encouraged that lack of involvement for years -- and, again, conscription won't change 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.What? That we can change spoiled brats by forcing them to do something they don't want to do? Good luck with that.That's the point of Ricks' argument.....
Again I'll point out that this is not about fixing the force or even the political milieu -- it's about sociological tinkering and determining what's 'best' for the masses by self appointed pseudo elites. Don't join that crowd, you can do better...Oh? Have you not suggested that conscripts could perform 'other public services?' Is that not social ownership of a means of production?Socialism is the about the social ownership of the means production, which has nothing to do with conscription.
Socialism is also a political philosophy and it is noted for an elite directing things be done as they desire for the' common good' (as THEY see it) -- regrettably, the common folk generally get little say in how that will work .As has this one which is more Socialist than many...Governments of all kinds, most of them not socialist, have used conscription at one point or another.Not a gimmick as you well know; the charge was that conscription was like socialistic dreams. That is accurate. Like socialism which has never really worked (because people are involved; that and the right persons have never been in charge...), conscription works well for producing mass, cannon fodder Armies -- and is good for little else -- and to tout it as a panacea is living in a dream world. Been there, done that -- it works but poorly and it's still involuntary servitude and it still has remarkably little effect on governance and adventurism.Nice gimmick though.That's true and you and I can probably agree that the Army is broken and truly in need of a major overhaul. We would probably agree on many things and disagree on some -- but on conscription as a cure, we'll have to disagree . Implement and it will make little to no difference, it will as I and others have tried to point out, make some things worse -- not much, admittedly but worse of any degree is not better...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.
Note also that American society elects those Congroids who spend trillions of dollars on a lot of really dumb stuff other than idiotic and unnecessary wars and who eschew responsibility for ANY hard decisions to curtail or cope with that spending -- or the wars.We can disagree on that. The AVF like every other Army, conscript or not, is a reflection of the society from which it comes. If you don't like an Army look at its roots -- that's where your problems will lie. Always.So yes, it is the military, not American society which the military serves, that needs fixing.
Aw shucks! I always screw that one up!Originally Posted by Slapout[/quote
Like I said before, I'm not particularly concerned with my reputation on a fairly anonymous opinion board. Anyway, beer, fishing, and NASCAR (I got it right that time!) are staples of Southern culture and that shows in military culture as well. I suppose I could add tobacco too.Originally Posted by Entropy
Yes, yes, I've seen it too, which is why the source I cited listed alcohol related deaths as opposed to alcohol consumption. I guess we could add that Southerners can't hold their beer as well northerners to the list of stereotypes.Originally Posted by Entropy
I mentioned it here. Let's say you were drafted in 1940. As a private, you would have earned 50$ a month. While in the States, and in England, you probably would have spent that money while on pass. Then you get shipped off to Italy or France or some other combat zone where your opportunities to spend your wages probably totaled around zero. Suddenly the war is over, you are demobilized and you're sent home. Now you have the GI Bill. So you decide to go to medical school or law school or tech school. After graduating, you open your own practice and hire a couple of nurses and secretaries, or legal assistants, or whatever. You also buy a newly constructed home in the suburbs with your VA benefits to raise the large family you're about to start. Between 1944 and 1973, up to one third of the population follows a similar path, since the draft made them eligible for the program. Businesses are founded, neighborhoods are constructed, and families are started -- incomes rise, commerce grows, and the tax revenue increases, enabling the government to invest in education, technology (yes, like the internet), the interstate system, and so on.Originally Posted by Entropy
Fast forward to 2012. Maybe you're a private, or a NCO, or an officer. It doesn't matter. Maybe you use the GI Bill, or Tuition Assistance, or the military's graduate studies program. Most likely, you're a careerist since retention rates are fairly high. So with the exception of the direct payments to your education institution, your education isn't value added to the economy; just your career (and only to a small extent). You don't hire anybody or start a business because the military gives you people to supervise. You might buy a home or rent, but eventually you'll leave your current neighborhood for the next one -- which might be in a foreign community. And when you deploy, you supervise or guard the construction of a new school or outpost. Or two. Or three or four. And to defend these gains invested outside of the country, you might fire a few rounds from your unit's crew served weapons or direct the targeting of a JDAM. Whatever you decide to do, you expend America's wealth abroad, not at home. It's not your fault of course; a well-to-do company makes those missiles, and the military purchases them for a few million dollars, and they're designed to be expended on the battlefield while that company's earnings are divested among its owners (some of whom may be in Congress). And maybe that school you spent a year trying to get started does get off the ground, but how many of those Iraqis and Afghans are going to grow up to start a business or own a home in America? The point is, you don't leave the service and your net economic input into the economy is equal to that of your disposable wages, since your time and energy and resources are generally spent abroad. And you repeat that process two or three or even four times.
I've pointed it out here and here. This article provides a good overview.Originally Posted by Entropy
That would give our multi-billion dollar warships something to do.Originally Posted by Entropy
Last edited by AmericanPride; 04-24-2012 at 07:00 AM.
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
My point was that we have no basis for comparing whether the use of American draftees in WWI and WWII was as effective as you assert. The opponents had already brought their A team to the conflict and were now only using what was, at best, their taxi squad by the time the US got into the fight. It would be interesting to have seen how the conscript US military would have fared had they been on the battlefields of France in 1940. I suspect the outcome would have been similar to that displayed by the poilus. We do have a sample of the effectiveness of American regulars against a first-rate opponent in the Philippines in 1941-42. Here's the "score" from the Battle of Bataan (according to a Wikipedia entry)
US/Filipino: Japanese:
10,000 killed, 7,000 killed
20,000 wounded 12,000 wounded
75,000 prisoners
All of the above is not tied to conscription. It is tied to the mobilization and demobilization of a massive military force, regardless of the method used to get the numbers needed into the force. Had the US forces been raised simply by the use of volunteers (a la the 90% of forces raised by the Union Army in the Civil War), I submit the same kinds of economic results would have accrued during and after WWII. BTW, if you are right about conscription and find the 8.5% draftee rate in the Civil War so significant, why was there not a "baby boom" like phenomenon in the period 1865-1880. What about the period 1918-1933? Seems to me that the US had a rather significant economic downturn in this latter period. How does that square with your assertion about the benefits of a draft army?
But you still have not show the causal connection between conscription and economic booms that you assert. I'm still waiting to see the necessary connection between a draft and an improved economy, which sems to be the crux of your argument. If ypu wish to say a draft is sufficient to bolster a nation's economy, that is a very different point. (I still doubt it's truth, by the way). And if you prefer to assert this weaker claim, then my response is that other means to bolster economic growth are avaialble to the nation. I, for one, would prefer to use those other means rather than resorting to a draft. Using the draft reminds me of the line attributed to both UT football coach Darrel Royal and OSU football coach Woody Hayes about throwing a pass in football: three things can happen and two of them are bad.
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris
The period 1940-1973 is sui generis. As such, one extrapolates from it to the present day at one's peril.
A single instance of a period of benefit does not establish any kind of correlation that future periods of conscription will produce similar benefits. In fact, I think the weight of evidence presented by posters other than yourself in this thread is against the position you hold. (I do give you full marks for tenacity though.)
Last edited by davidbfpo; 04-24-2012 at 04:06 PM. Reason: Fix italics
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris
I'd have to agree and disagree. Where I sit everyday I can point out individuals and groups that get and "don't" get what service means. There are more than a few that refer to "sillyvillians" and other such inanities. I must say though most of the military I deal with are incredibly intelligent, of superior intellect, and far from oppressed. Unfortunately there is also the vocal few. Some in leadership roles. That profess a preponderance of woes me.
Not to side track the discussion but the military retirement fiasco, the gray beard program, and the number of stars sitting at military contractors are just minor examples of profiteering from "service".
That being said I can name a number of examples of enlisted who joined after 9/11, have moved up the ranks at an incredible rate through large number of deployments, and are now at 11 years of service being kicked to the curb. Hence, my disagreeable presentation to the "service" aspect and desire to see that "service" shared among more people.
A tenuous argument but a passionate desire to see sacrifice shared.
I would argue that you already said the personnel system and educational systems are screwed so anything we do is only icing not causal. I would argue also that shared sacrifice does improve citizenship, civil, and military relationships. But, I also know that the current military has a significant focus on soft power, emergency response, and that their options for military service beyond killing people and breaking things.
To be sure I most definitely want to break the back of "elitist soldier culture". I consider it a risk to national security on par with radical leftist values, and people from Florida
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
If the above is your argumemnt for how a draft yields an improved economy, it has some fatal flaws. The Baby Boom scenario shows what happens after a soldier demobilizes. A draftee need not be the only one who demobilizes. The 2012 scenario only discusses part of the WII example, as it speaks only to a soldier who continues to serve.
Your description of the current defense industry is only partially correct. While a few very large companies tend to be the winners of the big contracts, every one of those contracts has a host of small businesses involved in the production of the acquired goods. (Remember supply chains!) A significant portion of defense contracts are designated as small business set asides and most contracts mandate that a portion of the work be done by small businesses as sub-contractors.
One last point--what funded all of the veterans benefits touted in your previous post? An interesting set of data points compares the national debt to the GDP. From 1944-1951, the US national debt was over 75% of GDP and exceeded 100% of GDP in 1946 and 1947. The 2 lowest decades for the ratio since 1940 were 1974-83 and 1998-2008 (both after the draft ended).
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris
I agree, but with the smaller all-volunteer force, there are not nearly as many demobilized soldiers because the force is smaller and many remain in the service as careerists. Just as the draft provides a massive manpower boost to the armed forces, when coupled with generous veterans' programs, it can also lead to significant economic returns. I cited this article earlier:Originally Posted by wm
The impact of the GI Bill would have been drastically weaker, perhaps even insignificant, without the mass demobilization following World War II (where 85% of service members were draftees), and the continued peace-time draft, giving up to one third of the population access to these benefits up until 1973.The authors make it clear that the education benefits of the legislation helped spur postwar economic growth by training legions of professionals. The GI Bill, they write, “made possible the education of fourteen future Nobel laureates, two dozen Pulitzer Prize winners, three Supreme Court justices, [and] three presidents of the United States.’’ It also greatly increased access to higher education for ethnic and religious minorities who had been previously excluded.
I agree, but this benefit is not as great as the opportunity cost of this action:Originally Posted by wm
The article seriously calls into question the efficacy of small wars that have little or unfavorable political outcomes but with extremely high price tags. This other article addresses the same problem:For each million dollars, federal defense spending creates 8.3 jobs both directly and indirectly in the economy. These are jobs not only for the military personnel themselves, but also jobs in vehicle manufacturing, construction, ammunition production, and other industries which supply goods and services to the military. As we see from the figure below, the same million dollars spent in other industries such as healthcare, education, or energy efficiency, creates a greater number of jobs than military spending.
In contrast to the 8.3 jobs created by $1 million in defense spending, that same level of spending would create 15.5 jobs in public education, 14.3 jobs in healthcare, 12 jobs in home weatherization, or about the same number of jobs in various renewable energy technologies. Thus it is a fallacy to claim that we need war spending in order to bolster the economy. We see here that investments in renewable energy such as solar, wind, or biomass, would create just as many jobs as military spending. Efficiency programs such
as weatherization of homes and public buildings would create about 1.5 times as many jobs, and federal support for healthcare and education would create twice as many as the same level of military spending.
This second article emphasizes that the US can receive greater value for its money by taking a serious look at its defense spending habits. I noted before that of the top 20 countries by active-duty end-strength, 13 have more soldiers per 1000 capita than the US. None of those, excluding the US, are in the top 20 of economies by GDP and none of them exceed the US in defense expenditures per capita either. So while we are spending (significantly) more money to field less combat power, we do not have a correlating increase in security that should presumably come along with it. Pentagon watchers in the past have noted that while defense spending increases, military readiness (and consequently effectiveness) is declining because of unexpected cost growth, production cutbacks, shrinking and aging pools of military equipment, and personnel reductions to pay for it all. This is a problem unique to the current defense political economy of the all-volunteer force that, in the last ten years, has consumed up to eight trillion dollars of US wealth. And as noted in the other articles I cited, neither does it produce in an increase in security, it is also a net drain on the economy as well. This is not to argue that defense is unnecessary, but that the current defense structure is coming at the cost of development and living conditions at home.Heintz (2010) found that a 1% increase in investment in ‘core infrastructure’ would increase the productivity of the private sector by up to 0.2%, considering the direct effects of infrastructure investments. These estimates can be used in a hypothetical illustration. If half of the investment which built up the current stock of defense assets had been dedicated to building the core infrastructure of the U.S. economy, this would represent a 13.5% increase in the value of infrastructure assets – and a potential 2.7%
boost to private productivity (worth over $270 billion, based on current levels of private GDP).
This is a good point and I agree that a central consequence of conscription is it's high cost. But we shouldn't be as concerned with our debt as we should be with our ability to pay for it. Much of today's political discourse is about austerity -- in other words, cutting costs to cover expenditures. But this is a failed business and economic model and rarely ever works. The aim should be for growth-based profitability, which may require greater debt to fund government programs (i.e. the interstate project or the GI bill). And as the articles I cited point out, investing in those projects would have higher returns than in defense dollar-for-dollar. So, either the way we maintain our fighting services and how those fighting services prosecute so-called "small wars" need to become more efficient, or we need to start thinking about alternative approaches to the political economy of national security. As it is, the all-volunteer force is not economically sustainable and is increasingly cost ineffective.Originally Posted by wm
Last edited by AmericanPride; 04-24-2012 at 04:34 PM.
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
Let's look at this "weight of evidence".
Ken's position focused on the unethical nature of conscription and the craven nature of politicians (mostly Congress).
Originally Posted by KenOriginally Posted by KenOriginally Posted by KenOriginally Posted by KenOriginally Posted by KenOriginally Posted by KenI think that sums up rather clearly Ken's objections to conscription. While he made numerous claims that conscription won't fix this or that, he really did not provide any historical or factual evidence to augment his argument nor did he point out how craven politicians and the weak-willed public are at all contradictory to the benefits of mass conscription. In some discussion, he does point out that all-volunteer forces have capable track records, but that does not necessarily demonstrate an inherent effectiveness over conscript forces.Originally Posted by Ken
Like some of the other posters, which I will also quote, Ken also attacks the personal motivations of the writer rather to undermine the credibility of the argument.
Lastly, a large number of Ken's comments are anecdotal:Originally Posted by Ken
Originally Posted by KenOriginally Posted by KenOriginally Posted by KenThese personal observations may be true insofar that they were perceived at one point by Ken, but that does not make it representative of the whole.Originally Posted by Ken
OK, on to Steve.
Steve's position is that conscription would not break or diminish military elitist culture.
He also objected to my use of Civil War conscripts as an example of the positive effects of conscription. His position was not that there were not positive effects, but that there any positive effects were insignificant:Originally Posted by Steve Blair
Originally Posted by Steve BlairWhether or not Civil War conscripts statistics are significant is a conversation separate from whether or not conscription has positive effects.Originally Posted by Steve Blair
Also, he attacks the author as well:
Yes, very weighty evidence...Originally Posted by Steve Blair
Let's move on to Fuchs:
Fuchs argues that conscription is worse for the general welfare of a soldier than a volunteer force.
Originally Posted by FuchsI have not disputed his argument.Originally Posted by Fuchs
Before I move on to Entropy's comments, who has along with you, provided the most substantial counter-arguments about the positive outcome of conscription, I will quote a few other ad hominem fallacies:
Originally Posted by GuteOriginally Posted by vanOk, so now on to Entropy's comments.Originally Posted by JMA
His first objections are to the fairness of conscription:
Originally Posted by EntropyOriginally Posted by EntropyOriginally Posted by EntropyThese are not necessarily counter-arguments since he is only pointing out that conscription has consequences of its own (which I do not dispute). He does not point out these consequences exceed the benefits gained, or or how these consequences are worst than the problems we are facing now. But he does go deeper eventually:Originally Posted by Entropy
The source for his evidence is Ken's post, which as I noted above, is usually anecdotal and has an obvious bias against the mental and ethical capacities of political decision-makers.Originally Posted by Entropy
Entropy does make an alternative suggestion for the problem(s) identified in Ricks' article:
Later on, Entropy does object to my evidence of the positive outcomes of conscription (especially in the 1940 - 1973 era):Originally Posted by Entropy
I then pointed him to my multiple posts where I laid out my arguments for the positive benefits of conscription. Most of his comments were focused on objections to my arguments on the basis of my conclusions or a perceived lack of evidence. He did not, however, provide much in the of counter-evidence.Originally Posted by Entropy
Then we come to our dialogue, which I don't need to quote for you. So I disagree with you that the other posters provided a substantial "weight of evidence" against my position.
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
That was not my point. "General welfare" is as a term linked to a country, not an individual.
Conscription is more expensive (monetary costs + human costs) than a volunteer army and thus suboptimal from the national point of view (,too).
American Pride has been trying to make an argument from analogy to carry his point that a draft would be good today.
To recap AP's argument: A draft in 1940-73 was good for America becase it revitalized the American economy during that period. Therefore, a draft in 2012 will be good for today's American economy.
What he has not shown is how today's American economy is relevantly similar tothat of the period 1940-1973, which he holds up as the basis for his undemonstrated analogy.
I have asserted that the 1940-73 time frame is sui generis. I find especially interesting the fact that American Pride has not tried to rebut that claim.
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris
This is simply not true for the United States. First, of the top twenty countries by active-duty end-strength, 13 exceed the United States in per 1,000 capita. These countries are North Korea, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Vietnam, Myanmar, France, Syria, Italy, Taiwan, and Colombia. None of them surpass the United States in GDP or military expenditures per capita. Of those 13 countries, 11 have conscription (North Korea, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Vietnam, Myanmar, Syria, Taiwan, Colombia). Now, the objection here would be that the US spends more per capita (even over conscript forces) because of its technological advancements. This argument also implies that these technologies are cost effective and produce a measurable increase in US military effectiveness. But this is not true either. This article and this article lay out how defense spending is not efficient at all. Moreover, this is made worse by the inefficiencies of the US national security political economy that is leading to a decline in military readiness despite increased spending. And lastly, we can throw in the three to eight trillion dollar bill for the GWoT. We can also look at the mixed US track record in favorably and definitively terminating conflicts since 1973. So, not only is US spending actually more inefficient than existing conscript forces, the perceived increase in combat power gained by technology has not improved US military effectiveness or American security by any substantial amount.Originally Posted by Fuchs
In contrast, we can examine US economic and military performance when the draft was in place from 1940 - 1973. I pointed out earlier that the mass mobilization and expanded benefits allowed for a full third of the US population during that time access to economic benefits. And the use of those benefits had a direct, measurable, and substantial impact on 'general welfare' of the US, including education, technological advancement, infrastructure, job growth, tax revenues, and civil rights.
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
AmericanPride,
Here's the thing. The number of alcohol related deaths does not tell us who likes beer and who doesn't. It tells us the number of alcohol-related deaths. The two are not directly related, nor can it be claimed that alcohol-related deaths are a proxy indicator for liking beer without demonstrating a link between the two. Therefore, citing alcohol-related deaths is not evidence the south "likes beer." That's why I specifically cited beer consumption because people who like beer consume beer; hence that is a valid indicator to use when determining who does and doesn't like beer.Yes, yes, I've seen it too, which is why the source I cited listed alcohol related deaths as opposed to alcohol consumption. I guess we could add that Southerners can't hold their beer as well northerners to the list of stereotypes.
Now, this is a side point and whether or not the south likes beer is irrelevant to a discussion on conscription. However, I bring this up as emblematic of the kind of evidence supporting your arguments throughout this thread. My complaint is that you make sweeping claims and then can't or won't support them. You simply assert they are true or relevant.
Another example is your use of the GI Bill as evidence that conscription produces better economic outcomes than the AVF. The problem here is that the GI Bill is not tied to conscription, nor is it a required element of conscription. Let's say, for example, that we take away the GI Bill and the economic benefits of the GI Bill. If that happens, then all the economic benefits you ascribe to conscription that are actually produced by the GI Bill go away. Or, alternatively, let's say we give everyone in America the GI Bill - same result.
Secondly, WWII drafted a lot of people for a short amount of time and then dumped most of them back into the regular economy. You should not expect, for example, to see the same results by keeping a WWII sized conscript force as a continuous measure. In that case conscription, in most cases, hurts the economy because military service is not productive and so that labor would be more productive in the economy. Keeping several million people out of the productive elements of the economy on an indefinite basis is not going to produce the benefits you've described.
Third, this bears highlighting again:
There is also a clear, documented relationship between global warming and pirates. Pointing out correlations is not proof or evidence of anything.There's a clear, documented relationship between the US draft 1940 - 1973 and American prosperity in that era.
As to the post-war boom, there are many more factors - factors actually shown as causal - that do relate to and explain American prosperity in that era. Conscription isn't one of them.
Finally, I think this discussion, for me, has about run its course. It seems pretty clear that we have very different ideas of what constitutes cause and effect and what is merely coincidental. Readers can decide for themselves who makes the better argument.
In closing, I'll just reiterate my position on conscription:
Simply, it's this: I think conscription is only justified by military necessity. I think conscription as a tool for social or economic engineering is dangerous and foolish.
The advocates for conscription in this thread and Tom Ricks judiciously avoid discussing military necessity because it's obvious that military forces rarely need conscription to maintain adequate manpower. So, unable to justify conscription in terms of military necessity, advocates come up with a host of alternative reasons why conscription is good or necessary. Unfortunately for them, the reasons are not well supported historically or academically.
In addition to avoiding arguments about military necessity, advocates for conscription also tend to avoid the negative aspects of conscription and the obvious problems with implementation. Conscription doesn't work very well if the military is small compared to the general population. There will always be volunteers so the number of actual conscripts is not likely to be large. If there are enough volunteers then conscripts aren't needed at all. What should be done then?
Conscription makes a lot more sense for a large military that can't get enough recruits from volunteers. To get a lot of the effects advocates describe, we would need to increase the end-strength of the military significantly, reduce compensation and benefits to discourage volunteers, and make up the difference with conscripts. It could be done but I fail to see why we need a large military to begin with - the active force we have now is already too big, IMO. Nor do I see any net benefit to creating a large force simply to justify conscription for the purposes of social engineering.
Last edited by Entropy; 04-24-2012 at 07:29 PM.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
Oh, the irony.Lastly, a large number of Ken's comments are anecdotal:
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
Potentially. My first aim is to destroy the myths that conscript forces are inherently less cost effective and less capable in definitively and favorably ending conflict than all-volunteer forces. While the experience of other countries may be up for debate, I think it is very clear that these myths have no basis in reality for the US.Originally Posted by wm
I have not intentionally over-looked your claim, though I wonder on what basis you claim the whole "1940 - 73" time to be sui generis. There are significant differences in today's economy compared to the most recent draft era, a number of which are: increased financialization of the economy, higher concentrations of wealth in the upper echelons of society, and extremely low effective tax rates for the wealthy and corporations (who, as I noted, also have more of society's wealth). These may or may not be relevant to the effects of mass mobilization,though I think putting the 16.7% of youth that are unemployed to work (even if they're just mowing laws in the brigade footprint), is better than having that labor idle.Originally Posted by wm
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
@AmericanPride:
I am 100% confident that you do not get anything of what I wrote here. I advise to go back to my first post and read it real slow - twice.
You claimed that an all-volunteer force is inherently more cost effective than a conscription force. In the case of the United States, I have demonstrated that to be false. So, instead of continually referring back to your original post, I recommend that you refute the argument and evidence I have laid out. Thanks.
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
Those are viable alternatives which have taken you way too long to bring up. So, as we can see here, the most effective solution may not be the re-institution of the draft, but government programs directed at the economic well-being of the middle class, which would bring us to the large body of evidence that both a government economic policy and a robust middle class are good for the health of a country. I have not claimed the draft to be the exclusive solution for the problems identified in this thread.Originally Posted by Entropy
The draft period did not end with the end of WW2. It ended in 1973.Secondly, WWII drafted a lot of people for a short amount of time and then dumped most of them back into the regular economy. You should not expect, for example, to see the same results by keeping a WWII sized conscript force as a continuous measure.
The expansive access to government economic benefits provided to a majority of the population through a sustained period of time through conscription is one of them.Originally Posted by Entropy
Military necessity was never a point of contention, so I do not see why you bring it up now as evidence against the intentions of your opponents.Originally Posted by Entropy
Again, that conscription has consequences of its own was never a point of contention.Originally Posted by Entropy
Take care.
Last edited by AmericanPride; 04-24-2012 at 08:00 PM.
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
Bookmarks