End the All-Volunteer Force

[AmericanPride]

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. I don't think this can be accomplished equitably except, perhaps, in times of great military necessity (ie. a large conflict which requires lots of manpower which is when you'd need a draft anyway). Inevitably, those with more political influence will be less likely to be drafted than those with less political influence. We are still living with some of those issues from the last draft (see GWB and Bill Clinton). 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.

This is probably the greatest problem, though I think it's largely been addressed through a number of selective service reforms undertaken since 1973 to reduce exemptions and deferments. Of course, there will always be people who will seek to avoid their obligations; if someone is intent on breaking the law, the law won't stop them from doing so. The question is to what extent could this occur in the future, would it be nationally significant (as apart from politically significant for public service "careers"), and what factors could mitigate it.

Then again, the drafts in WW1 and WW2, for example, opened up the workforce to minorities and women. As of the end of 2011, the unemployment rate for young adults (18 - 24) was 16.7%. With 4 million new young adults each year, labor is only becoming more competitive and will continue to drive down wages (in the absence of a minimum wage increase). Removing those 4 million young adults from the labor force anywhere from 2 - 24 months would (1) increase demand for labor and therefore increase wages and (2) provide surplus labor an outlet to input value into the economy. After all, it can't be assumed that we'll poor in 4 million new soldiers into a conflict every year, and they will use their labor and wages for other purposes. (If the current military demographic is any indication, it will be on beer, fishing, Nascar, and strip clubs).

Well, first of all, I never said or suggested a draft would be an "unmitigated disaster" for the US. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't editorialize my comments.

My bad.

If you can't explain how conscription is remotely relevant to the issues you pointed out, then perhaps you can explain your purpose in raising issues that aren't relevant to conscription.

It's relevant to the extent that there is no correlation between maintaining an all-volunteer force and the general welfare or security of the country. After WW2, when millions of young men were demobilized and sent home (85% of whom were draftees), they didn't just provide a baby boom. They were also provided financial and educational benefits that lead to the post-war economic boom, in turn financing today's infrastructure projects and social programs (including the origins of the internet). In totality, this led to higher education rates and performance, higher employment rates with higher quality jobs, higher wages across the entire class spectrum, more effective tax code, and faster technological development. Not to mention the impetus for integration of minorities and women in politics, the economy, and society (and even the school lunch program) as a result of the war's demands and continued requirements of national security.

In fact, it's generally established that maintaining an all-volunteer force has the opposite effect. Every dollar spent on defense is a net drain on the economy, with the opportunity cost being the higher returns in economic activity and job growth that could have been gained by investing in education, infrastructure, health, or technology. The military "culture" is increasingly a southern-Christian-conservative culture with a fantasy "warrior culture" at odds with most demographics of American society (with the exception of the southern-Christian-conservatives that enlist in large numbers). Now, today's SWJ blogpost did posit the interesting idea of tying counter-insurgency projects to development projects here at home, which may in some way mitigate the high cost/low output (read: inefficiency) problem of the AVF.

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.

I'm not avoiding any fact. Duh, the corollary to 8.5% is 91.5%. So what? How does that make the service of 168,000 men insignificant? How is 8.5% a statistically insignificant number? The obvious fact is that despite the general mythos captured in the New York Draft Riot, almost a tenth of all soldiers in the Union Army were draftees.

Has it ever occurred to you that many of the failings that exist in the current force (poor training, personnel system, etc.) exist primarily because they were developed with a conscript force in mind?

Actually, I think it more has to do with poor strategic leadership, gross budgetary waste and inefficiency coupled with no accountability, and a cultural obsession with high speed, low drag next-generation equipment instead of manpower. The quality of the soldier does not change with how he was recruited (or are the 85% of drafted WW2 veterans not a part of the Greatest Generation?) but instead with leadership and policy. I never argued the AVF to be inept... it's simply just not as effective as our most recent use of a conscripted force.

What makes the volunteer force unsustainable is the attempt to maintain it at levels more suited to a Cold War, conscription-based force

No -- it's unsustainable because of the defense death spiral which can only be profitable at the expense of long-term military readiness. 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 that tells me that while the US has much higher capacity to maintain a professional military force, the excess 'space' created by a larger economy is being consumed by inefficiencies in the defense budget. Treasure is the sinews of war, and we're not spending ours effectively. That is why the all-volunteer force is unsustainable.

And this was what came into play with many of the draft exemptions that came into force in the early 1960s. It was never universal service, and when less force was needed it became even less universal. And when the need came to ramp up calls, it was only natural to target those who were in no shape to politically resist those calls (the lower class) or not inclined to do so (the middle class).

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

[Steve Blair]

I'm not avoiding any fact. Duh, the corollary to 8.5% is 91.5%. So what? How does that make the service of 168,000 men insignificant? How is 8.5% a statistically insignificant number? The obvious fact is that despite the general mythos captured in the New York Draft Riot, almost a tenth of all soldiers in the Union Army were draftees.

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

And before we get too attached to those Boomers and their accomplishments, let's also take time to consider their role in the over-inflation of the US education system (to the point where a college degree is now the paid equivalent of a high school diploma and necessary two-year technical programs are often marginalized as "not good enough" when compared to the four-year degree). How many are being pushed into the military to take advantage of various aid programs spawned by the draft in order to finance their own society-mandated post-secondary education?

And that Greatest Generation rhetoric is just that. I fail to see how feeling a draft these days would not work squares with comparison to World War II. Let's also not forget that those draftees with lower aptitude scores were usually funneled into the infantry. Or that the "total mobilization" of the US was also a reasonable amount of political rhetoric. 90 Division Gamble, anyone?

And wm, you are correct. During the later 1800s we also saw similar spikes in enlistment due to economic downturns, accompanied by an accelerated sense of moral and social superiority on the part of the officer corps when compared to the rest of US society. It's an interesting period from a military standpoint...one that we too often ignore.

[AmericanPride]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Steve Blair]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Van]

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

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

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

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

[AmericanPride]

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

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

[AmericanPride]

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

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

[AmericanPride]

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

[AmericanPride]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Van]

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

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

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

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

[Steve Blair]

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

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

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

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

[carl]

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

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

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

[carl]

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

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

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

[AmericanPride]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[carl]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[selil]

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.

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

[Entropy]

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

and

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

and

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

and

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

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

Hmm, this is interesting:

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

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

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

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

So, uh, how do you reconcile that?

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

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