Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 99

Thread: End the All-Volunteer Force

  1. #61
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    Apparently I should thank conscription for the internet instead of Al Gore. Who knew?
    Yup.

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    Anyway, I guess you think military spending is great, right?
    Depends on the circumstances.

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    After all, look at all the cool things it produced, which you helpfully listed! But wait, what about this:

    So, uh, how do you reconcile that?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    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?
    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.
    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

  2. #62
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    It's NASCAR not Nascar! That's Important

  3. #63
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Common poverty in lieu of common wealth...

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    The British military record is no more spectacular than any other European power... I'm not concerned about small unit performance as I am with definitive and favorable terminations of conflict.
    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 the US draft 1940 - 1973 and American prosperity in that era...
    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 also a clear relationship between present US defense spending with the all-volunteer force and the political and economic consequences of military policy.
    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.
    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.
    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...
    That's the point of Ricks' argument.....
    What? That we can change spoiled brats by forcing them to do something they don't want to do? Good luck with that.

    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...
    Socialism is the about the social ownership of the means production, which has nothing to do with conscription.
    Oh? Have you not suggested that conscripts could perform 'other public services?' Is that not social ownership of a means of production?

    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 .
    Governments of all kinds, most of them not socialist, have used conscription at one point or another.
    As has this one which is more Socialist than many...
    Nice gimmick though.
    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.
    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.
    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...

    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.
    So yes, it is the military, not American society which the military serves, that needs fixing.
    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.

  4. #64
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slapout[/quote
    It's NASCAR not Nascar! That's Important
    Aw shucks! I always screw that one up!

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    it ends up saying more about you than it does about southerners.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    Additionally, being a beer-snob myself, let me tell you that you're flat out wrong about the beer (PDF File).
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    Well, you didn't explain the discrepancy. You didn't explain why I, just to name one example, would be more productive to society instead of a net drain had I been drafted instead of volunteering.
    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.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    You've established nothing. You repeatedly asserted a connection and then refused to substantiate it. When specifically challenged, you demurred and said you were only pointing out "that these things were better during the most recent draft period than after it with the all-volunteer force." Which is to say that you admited there is nothing to support the connection you say you established!
    I've pointed it out here and here. This article provides a good overview.

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    Clearly we need to recruit - or maybe conscript - more pirates!
    That would give our multi-billion dollar warships something to do.
    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

  5. #65
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    How does the effective use of draftees (i.e. the attainment of a favorable political outcome in a conflict) dispute the claim that draftees can be used effectively?
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    You are right -- in my previous posts I did not provide an explanation for what I see to be connections between universal national service and economic productivity. I did address that in my most recent post before this, however. One of the immediate consequences of WW2 was ending the Great Depression but the profits gained by industry during the war is not a sufficient explanation for continued economic success after the war when those military contracts disappeared and businesses went back to making butters instead of guns. The opportunity was capitalized upon by the millions of Americans (85% of them draftees) returning home who went back to school, bought houses and cars, and found good paying jobs to raise all the kids they would be having. And this opportunity was provided to them as a result of their military service, of which the vast majority was a result of involuntary induction. In comparison, the GWoT has cost the US anywhere from 3 trillion to 8 trillion dollars (take your pick), and instead of producing a post-war boom (the Iraq War is over right???), it has forced the country into a financial emergency.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    I did not claim that there were not economic booms caused by factors other than conscription programs. This is not the same as claiming that conscription programs can have a net positive affect on a country.
    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

  6. #66
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    The most relevant measurement of conscription's benefits is during 1940 - 1973.
    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

  7. #67
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    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.
    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.

  8. #68
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    It's NASCAR not Nascar! 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.

    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.
    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

  9. #69
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default No one will ever accuse me of understanding statistical analysis

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    There's a clear, documented relationship between the US draft 1940 - 1973 and American prosperity in that era.
    But even I () understand that correlation is not causation.
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  10. #70
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wm
    The Baby Boom scenario shows what happens after a soldier demobilizes. A draftee need not be the only one who demobilizes.
    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:

    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by wm
    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.
    I agree, but this benefit is not as great as the opportunity cost of this action:

    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.
    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:

    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 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by wm
    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).
    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.
    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

  11. #71
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    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.)
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken
    [Tom Ricks'] proposed solution that political and ethical failure is to punish as many people -- himself not included -- as possible by reintroducing conscription.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken
    'Fixing' the armed forces is not the answer to correcting a significant slide and failure in US societal norms.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken
    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
    I 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.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken
    Confirming my long held opinion of [Tom Ricks'] twittishness (and military ignorance) he states...
    Lastly, a large number of Ken's comments are anecdotal:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken
    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.
    These 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.

    OK, on to Steve.

    Steve's position is that conscription would not break or diminish military elitist culture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair
    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.
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair
    Take the Civil War out of your ponderings, please. The backbone of the Union Army was state-raised volunteer units, not conscripts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair
    You continue to avoid the fact that the BACKBONE of the Union Army was state volunteer regiments. I understand that the 8.5% figure fits in with your pro-conscription position, but it still doesn't square with the military facts of that conflict. To reverse the statistics, 91.5% of the Union Army was NOT conscripted.
    Whether or not Civil War conscripts statistics are significant is a conversation separate from whether or not conscription has positive effects.

    Also, he attacks the author as well:

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair
    Ricks is a moron. Pretty simple.
    Yes, very weighty evidence...

    Let's move on to Fuchs:

    Fuchs argues that conscription is worse for the general welfare of a soldier than a volunteer force.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs
    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).
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs
    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.
    I have not disputed his argument.

    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gute
    I find Ricks to be an elitist snob who has used members of the military to push his agenda.
    Quote Originally Posted by van
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by JMA
    I think your man, Ricks, is trying to meet his quota of words published...
    Ok, so now on to Entropy's comments.

    His first objections are to the fairness of conscription:

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    Universal conscription is not really practical since about 4 million young adults reach 18 each year. So the question becomes a political one of who gets drafted and who doesn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    So, I think a return to the draft would enlarge divisions within America, not diminish them, and I think that is what would be damaging to America.
    These 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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    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.
    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.

    Entropy does make an alternative suggestion for the problem(s) identified in Ricks' article:

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    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.
    Later on, Entropy does object to my evidence of the positive outcomes of conscription (especially in the 1940 - 1973 era):

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    You've established nothing. You repeatedly asserted a connection and then refused to substantiate it. When specifically challenged, you demurred and said you were only pointing out "that these things were better during the most recent draft period than after it with the all-volunteer force." Which is to say that you admited there is nothing to support the connection you say you established!
    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.

    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

  12. #72
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
    Fuchs argues that conscription is worse for the general welfare of a soldier than a volunteer force.
    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).

  13. #73
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default The missing link in American Pride's Case

    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

  14. #74
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs
    Conscription is more expensive (monetary costs + human costs) than a volunteer army and thus suboptimal from the national point of view (,too).
    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.

    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

  15. #75
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default Correlation isn't causation

    AmericanPride,

    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.
    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.

    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's a clear, documented relationship between the US draft 1940 - 1973 and American prosperity in that era.
    There is also a clear, documented relationship between global warming and pirates. Pointing out correlations is not proof or evidence of anything.

    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.

  16. #76
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Lastly, a large number of Ken's comments are anecdotal:
    Oh, the irony.
    Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.

  17. #77
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wm
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by wm
    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.
    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.
    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

  18. #78
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    @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.

  19. #79
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    @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

  20. #80
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    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.
    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.

    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 draft period did not end with the end of WW2. It ended in 1973.


    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy
    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.
    Again, that conscription has consequences of its own was never a point of contention.

    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

Similar Threads

  1. Is it time for psuedo operations in A-Stan?...
    By jcustis in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-11-2009, 11:05 AM
  2. SFA capability is rooted in Individual Talent (part 1)
    By Rob Thornton in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 05-21-2009, 09:30 PM
  3. U.S. Still Waiting For Iraqi Forces To 'Stand Up'
    By SWJED in forum FID & Working With Indigenous Forces
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-04-2007, 06:13 PM
  4. Air Force Operations in Urban Environments Report
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-28-2006, 04:10 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •