The All-Volunteer Force: The Debate

I never knew lottery spells existed until I was referred to DR AMBER by my neighbor. I have been playing lottery games for the past 7 years and I have never won above $2,000 but after I came in contact with DR AMBER, I told him my past experience about playing lottery of which I have never won big amount and DR AMBER told me what will be done by praying and preparing a lottery spell for me. He did that and gave me some numbers to play the lottery game. At first I took everything as a joke until I was emailed a week after that I had won the sum of $343.9 million. I was shocked and surprised at that very moment because my long awaited prayers had finally been answered and I thank DR AMBER for helping me out for my financial status to change and that of my generations. If you want to win a huge amount on your next lottery game, contact DR AMBER now and I assure you that your bold step will be your change of level.

Email him via: [email protected] or Call/WhatsApp this number  +1 (406) 646-2222 for immediate response.

I'm thinking that it would have been a net minus if Warren Buffet had been a Reservist and taken a leave of absence from Berkshire to deploy to Kuwait in 1990.

And yes, Harvard and Yale are now on my list. But if they play against Columbia, I'll root first against Columbia.

SethB,

I agree with you about Marines OCS, though I believe a program physically located on campus has its advantages.

Shmedlap,

"People with a talent for creating wealth best serve the nation by doing just that, rather than doing what they are less talented at and less passionate about."

That's it - you framed it as an either/or split, moreso by adding "simultaneously" in the later response. Yet a reason some of us want more Ivy Leaguers in uniform in the post-9/11 environment is their potential and capacity to do more, both as officers and beyond either/or.

Putting aside Yingling's broader vision for why more of the type should serve, our economy is a multi-faceted creature and careers can be long and winding. I don't know that Alexander Hamilton ever ran a mom and pop or worked as a corporate VP while putting on and taking off the uniform as a founding father, but his career certainly created wealth for the nation. Practically, the obvious way an officer can do both is as a reservist with a civilian and military career. Over a long career, an officer can start active duty and move to a non-military career, and perhaps be called back later. Less relevant to ROTC, though still applicable to grad students and planting seeds in undergrad minds, some folks go to the uniform later in life. Along the way, networks and interpersonal connections will be made that reach back to the greater military and Ivy League communities, eventually forming a robust Ivy League military community.

As far as loathing my Alma Mater, oh well. It doesn't bother me since you seemed to enter this discussion with a dedicated bias against a system where more Columbians and Ivy Leaguers would be incentivized to serve, whether by draft compulsion or campus access to ROTC. If it helps, you can substitute another name like Yale or Harvard for Columbia in this thread, although Columbia ROTC advocacy includes the ROTC in NYC argument that other Ivies do not.

Eric,

Three things.

1. I pledge from now until eternity to root against Columbia in every athletic, academic, and other extracurricular endeavor it participates in. You are forcing me to loathe that institution.

2. What false choice did I propose?

3. You typed, <em>"We can have officers who are both."</em> I am not sure what you are referring to by "both." Both what? The only thing I see that I typed that you may be referring to is my statement that, <em>"People with a talent for creating wealth best serve the nation by doing just that, rather than doing what they are less talented at and less passionate about."</em>

If that is what you were referring to, then please explain how one can both exercise one's talent for creating wealth while simultaneously doing the opposite.

It would be easier to follow the Marine route and use OCS to access Officers. They get more of their Candidates from the cities than we do, and they get more Officers from OCS than we do, as a percentage.

Schmedlap,

You offer a false choice. We can have officers who are both. I believe COL Yingling is calling for officers who are multidimensional contributors to society. I agree. Where we differ is that Yingling seems to believe we need a draft to get the type. I believe a draft is premature; we should first instate ROTC on the campuses (eg, the Ivy League) where the type go to school in order to provide them fair access and incentives to serve.

A reason I advocate for Columbia ROTC is that the role model of the Columbia military officer is Alexander Hamilton. What does that mean? First, Hamilton's influence on the economic course of our nation is second to none. But more, Hamilton's intertwining career as statesman and soldier exemplifies service and leadership in and out of uniform. Hamilton had the kind of multidimensional career that Columbia officers aspire to and Yingling wants more of.

Upon further reflection, and accepting for the sake of argument the assumptions that COL Yingling makes (most of which I reject), I still think he's wrong.

Our military power derives in large part from our economic power. People with a talent for creating wealth best serve the nation by doing just that, rather than doing what they are less talented at and less passionate about.

Yingling invokes the phrase "To whom much is given, much is expected." Indeed. This phrase is derived from the Bible:
<blockquote><em>"For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."</em> - Luke 12:48 (KJV)</blockquote>

That does not mean that to whom much is given by God, much is to be expected by the state. Nor does it mean that to whom much is given by others, much is to be expected by the state. Nor does it mean that to whom much is given by the state, much is to be expected by the state through a specific mode of service. I suppose it's possible that Yingling didn't mean to invoke the authority of scripture in using that phrase, but that would ignore how that old adage derived its acceptance as a general truth.

And there's still the thorny issue of balancing personal freedom with the health of the state. Reinstating a draft is but one of many, many options to address the incompetence and corruption of our elected officials. But it happens to be the most extreme option that I am aware of, heavily favoring the state over the individual. As government continues to expand, in terms of debt, number of employees, size of the welfare state, expansion of government power, and so on, I think we really need to step back for a moment and consider whether we want to accelerate our slide down this steep slope.

The argument raised in many forums, and not just in the United States either, is that rich and powerful do not pull their weight in the defence of the country, if a service in the military is voluntary.

Similarly, when conscription or the draft is introduced the contention is that the wealthy and privileged elite find ways of getting out of doing military service. From the draft riots in New York during the War Between the States to Credence Clearwater Revival's song 'Fortunate Son', the perception that the sons of the rich and powerful are able to escape the draft has been ingrained into the American psyche.

The Credence Clearwater Revival line 'I ain't no fortunate one' encapsulates it nicely. I once marched on a parade to the song, Fortunate Son, which I thought was very radical of the Base Commander.

slapout,

Yes, but I was curious why <em>you</em> want to focus on wealth and income. You've raised the issue more than once, but the relevance of those factors isn't as obvious to me.

@anonymous

I hearya. As a young enlistee, I turned down my chance to become an officer in part because of the BS piled onto officers that I didn't want to deal with. Still, most jobs come with some degree of BS and officers get to lead soldiers and do some extraordinary things.

@Ken White: "You cannot legislate morality and you cannot legislate fairness."

But you can legislate access and incentives. It is certainly within Congress' purview to mandate and support ROTC in NYC and Columbia. LTC Yingling wants college age (male?) citizens from certain groups to be in uniform. But he takes a premature leap with conscription when we haven't yet tried placing ROTC on the campuses where these scions go to college. Set up ROTC at Columbia, properly resource it, add top-notch cadre, recruit students intelligently, provide them attractive incentives, and let's find out how many of the people Yingling wants will choose to serve without needing to subject the nation to a draft.

Cole:

National Service (NS) in Singapore is still seen as a way of nation building but the issue of NS draftees with a car, phone etc, secure that Mum and Dad will assist their income etc, is an issue. Many become officers which harks back to the gentlemen-soldier mentioned earlier. Unintended class distinction anyone?

One issue with the annual training in Singapore were professional soldiers seething when national service reservists came in driving BMWs etc for their ost NS two week annual commitment, who are still privates. This resulted in a SNCOs leaving in droves until there was a major increase in pay for military professionals.

Many NS reservists see it as a good way to reduce their stress. A two week fitness and adventure camp with no decision making.

Secondly if you don't pay E1 to E3s properly you won't get the higher quality recruits once the economy gets back on its feet. Most people join for a job or for the benefits available after serving like education.

Be in no doubt, the US military is paid poorly compared to others, such as Australia.

I know one US Lieutenant Colonel that retired and now works for a Beltway Bandit so he can have a secure passive income for his retirement, college fund for his child etc. Once his wife had a child, and he became a single-income family, he had no choice but to retire and take his pension, so he could get another income source. His story is by no means unique. Many ex-SNCOs I know are/were in the same boat. These are not spenthrifts either.

I agree that compulsory service does not produce a military witha core of twelve to twenty year professionals. It leads to a repeating military of two to three year soldiers.

Slapout9,

How can you move beyond questions of wages and benefits when the sole way to use a draft to build a larger Army/Marine Corps is to reduce E-1 to E-3 pay?

You ultimately force the fat richer draftee kid to serve who still gets an allowance and car/insurance/cell phone paid for by mom and dad, getting the same lower wage as the enlistee active or guardsman with a pregnant wife living in a trailer somewhere. Only one is suffering from that lower wage.

I was once a young 1975 enlistee being asked by drill sergeants to loan money to married Soldiers running short at the end of the month because I was single and already making similar loans to others to make a $5 profit. Think that would be condoned in a future conscript Army with lower pay?

slapout,

But when looking at the question of who fights and who pays, why do you choose to view it in terms of wealth or income? Why not some other factor, such as IQ, education, age, athleticism, or something else? What is it about wealth or income that is so significant?

@Eric.

Not everyone wants to sign up to got to war. People who join the 'civil progessive' type organisations can leave pretty much after two years or what ever contract and that's it. No reserve taining or call up implications.

Not all Ivy League students are from the 'upper classes' either - in fact a fair proportion are not. I am referring more to the elite universities in my discussion.

Finally, you forgot the peacetime/garison (for want of a better term) Shirty litle jobs (SLSs) type duties such as duty officer, oic basket weaving club, computer based training courses etc which suck up a junior officers time when not in teh field deployed or undergoing face to face training courses.

Why would you become one logically. I retired as a SNCO by the way. Stuff all the crap a junior officer goes through when you are over 35 with a family

@anonympus: "Perhaps 'shudder' the officer-gentleman wasn't such a bad thing."

Not such a bad thing when officers have to fulfill simultaneous roles as war-fighters, diplomats, peace-builders, and peace-keepers.

@anonymous: "If you look at what professionals earn as doctors, lawyers, dentists, accountants, and vetenarians earn; why would you join the military?"

Ivy Leaguers should be facially attracted to officership for similar reasons that Ivy Leaguers are attracted to other "civil progressive" selfless service programs like Teach for America, the Peace Corps, community organizing, NGOs, etc.. The "civil progressive" character of military service is prominently featured in 'AWOL', by Roth-Douquet and Shaeffer, which Yingling referred to in his original post.

The key point I'm trying to make responding to LTC Yingling is that, while we usually blame upper class people, the Ivy League, and the like for opting out of military service, the military actually shares the blame for the disparity that Yingling laments. If we're going to blame upper class people and elite universities for opting out of officership, then we also need to blame the military for denying those people and universities the fair access and opportunity to opt into officership through ROTC on campus. If the military makes an honest effort to reach out and recruit by properly investing in ROTC at Columbia and similar schools, and is then rejected, then LTC Yingling would have a better convincing case for conscription.

Donnelly's response to LTC Yingling in the other post does point out that Yingling seems to be conducting different discussions.

On the practical side, I believe achieving the benefits associated with conscription can at least be attempted with the AVF intact by properly investing in ROTC at universities like Columbia in NYC that are currently neglected by ROTC. The folks of the upper class whom Yingling wants in uniform - whether they're defined as top 1%, 10%, or X% - may be out of popular reach for most of their lives, but they all still go to college, normally at schools like Columbia. If we want to criticize upper class people for not serving, then we need to criticize the Army for denying them ROTC. ROTC is the realistic gateway to military service for college-bound people from that group and any college-bound demographic, yet ROTC is entirely missing at most of the universities the upper class attend. Before taking the sweeping radical step of a universal draft, at least try the reasonable step of providing properly supported ROTC programs on the campuses where upper class people spend their formative years. The Army should give them the same fair opportunity to join the Army through ROTC and/or form lifelong relationships with future officers that students at other schools in other regions take for granted.

In a different discussion, LTC Yingling also seems to be advocating for conscription as a means to check both executive and the nation's decision-making on military missions. During the Bush admin, Rep Charles Rangel made the same argument as Yingling does now. That draft discussion is about more than the military and demands a wide-ranging discussion on the American role in the world and a hindsight analysis of OIF. All I want to say about that is we shouldn't claim ends if we refuse to commit to the means, and if we agree on the ends, it is worthwhile to find more sustainable means to achieve those ends. On Iraq, what we've learned about the Iraq mission since 2003 is very different from where we stood with Iraq in 2002: Carter/Reagan doctrine, Weinberger/Powell doctrine, al Qaeda using our 1991-onward Iraq mission as its chief rallying cry, provocative garrison in Saudi Arabia, SecState Albright saying 500k dead Iraqi kids under sanctions is worth it, no fly zones, UNSCOM inspections with burden on Saddam to lift Iraq containment, indefinite course after Iraq Liberation Act and Op Desert Fox, etc.. Bush didn't gin up a cause for war with Iraq - he inherited the cause of war from his father and Clinton; in 1998, Clinton declared Iraq had "failed its last chance", pulled the inspectors, and bombed Iraq (without UN permission), which was definitely an act of war. More, it's not Bush's fault he inherited a military still traumatized by Vietnam, and so good at war yet so bad at occupation. For all the things for which Bush can be blamed, he should be given credit for empowering GEN Petraeus and his 'jedi knights' to try to fix the huge gaps in our military's capabilities.

I am being anonymous on this one as it is a public forum. I was in the Australian Defence Force and my comments apply on the US and other militaries.

I dropped out to join the military with very high Year Eleven scores, and there were no millionaires at the public school I went to. I served 28 years and my wife 11 although in different forces.

Observations from a 30 year academic and military career. The perception of the US military by many students and academics, from the New England area students I have spoken to, is that the US Army is generally a white officer led force with minorities and poor white trash/rednecks filling up the ranks. Members of other forces have commented on this is as well, and it could equally apply to the ADF when I was in it.

Now to colleges. I have been a researcher at an Ivy League university, as well as a PhD student at the Australian Defence Force Academy and at a prestigious Australian university. These are my observations and no-one elses. This is not a comment about their quality as officers only their academic backgrounds.

Only during times of the draft do you get a truly representative military. The military; other than people wanting to be the next 'Top Gun', civilian airline pilots, or civil, naval and aeronautical engineers (where else to you get to blow things up); rarely gets the best and brightest. I can only envisage it getting worse. If you look at what professionals earn as doctors, lawyers, dentists, accountants, and vetenarians earn; why would you join the military?

We have told our children to stay out of the military initially anyway. Unless you are aircrew, a submariner or SF, the pay is crap compared to the civilian world. We have told them get a degree, travel around the world, build your wealth and then go in if they wish. They should make better officers because they have life experiences outside the military, have traveled, and as it is generally very difficult in the first few years in the military (combat postings aside) to get ahead financially, they can concentrate on their career in the military with their finances secure.

Perhaps 'shudder' the officer-gentleman wasn't such a bad thing.

Ken White nailed it. Bookmark that one.

COL Yingling,

You've identified the problem as one of Congress not exercising sound decision making as a body. Not everyone agrees with that. Lacking significant consensus on the problem, you're not likely to get many converts for your solution.

Slapout,

<em>"All I want to see them do is what the founding fathers did...."Pledge their lives and their fortunes" just like the founding fathers did no more, no less.</em>

They pledged their lives and their fortunes only in that the new state was facing an existential threat and their fortunes rose or fell with it. The fortunes of today's wealthy elite would likely rise and fall with our state if we ever encounter another existential threat. Whether their lives will be at stake depends upon the nature of the enemy. Until then, drafting them isn't going to change that.

I'm still not clear on why wealth is such a salient issue in this matter. It seems to be motivated by imposing something upon wealthy people, rather than improving the military or helping the country. That's generally known as "class warfare" so maybe you'll succeed in dragging them into some type of war after all.

LTC Yingling,

Thank you. Using your guideposts, I wish to clarify my response regarding the Army's practical avoidance, as far as recruiting officers, of New York City's college students, arguably the deepest officer candidate pool in the country.

Representativeness. I understand citing the Columbia name automatically associates a framing of wealth and privilege. However, ROTC in NYC would open a larger range of diversity to the Army than just wealth and privilege. There is a substantial value-added basis for ROTC in NYC: cultural diversity, social diversity, lingual diversity, regional diversity, urban cosmopolitan diversity - name it and ROTC in NYC would boost the Army with it. Every year, hundreds of thousands of college students arrive in NYC from throughout the country, with smart and talented cream-of-the-crop types concentrated at Columbia. In addition to strong liberal arts programs, Columbia has one of the best engineering schools in the country.

Size. I agree that present campaigns have shown expanding the Army is necessary. If expanding the Army is the need and finding additional officers is the problem, the easy solution is the vast untapped resource of New York City. Conversely, present day, a chief justification from ROTC officials for rejecting ROTC in NYC is that theres no urgent need because ROTC is meeting its annual accessions targets, which are based on the current size of the military. Therefore, say ROTC officials, expanding ROTC in NYC under the current accessions cap would require shrinking ROTC somewhere else. Add 100K-200K soldiers to the Army, and ROTCs present excuse to avoid NYC goes away.

Quality. A popular argument for conscription is that the drafted 'greatest generation WW2 force included more Columbia-caliber recruits, and you imply conscription is the way to bring back that level of quality to the Army. Again, I contend that conscription is premature when the Army currently avoids recruiting officers from NYC and urban NE universities. Before conscription, the Army should try the reasonable step of investing in ROTC at Columbia and other top northeast universities: if you build it, they will come. If the Army makes an honest attempt investing in ROTC at Columbia and Columbia cadets dont come, then consider conscripting them.

See http://www.securenation.org/rotc-at-columbia-university, which argues that ROTC at Columbia would be an excellent match for the needs identified in the 2010 QDR. Whereas the Army focuses on post-accessions development to find officers capable of increasing demands, I contend the potential of an officers career development largely depends on the quality of that officers pre-accessions (cadet) foundation. ROTC at Columbia would give officers with the necessary academic grounding to the Army. Almost by definition, the unconventional pairing of Columbia and military means that Columbia officers are critical outside-of-the-box thinkers.

Cost. The other main argument by ROTC officials against ROTC in NYC is the higher cost of ROTC in the region. Under present ROTC metrics, a Columbia ROTC cadet has equal value to an Anywhere ROTC cadet, which dissuades the Army from the higher cost of ROTC at NYC. But ROTC fails to factor how much Columbia cadets will be worth to the nation over the course of their military careers.

Civil-military relations. Civil governance institutions have deep connections to Columbia and universities like Columbia. At an institutional level, and for future Columbia-graduate civilian officials and Army officers, civil-military relations would be boosted at the most granular level by ROTC vigorously interacting with Columbia everyday as a citizen of the campus. After all, the standard-bearer for the Columbia officer is the ultimate citizen-soldier, founding father Alexander Hamilton, and his leadership in and out of uniform.

Friends,

Thanks for the terrific comments on the question of how Congress should raise military forces to fight protracted wars.

While conscription and voluntary service are not mutually exclusive, these options represent fundamentally different views of military service in time of war. The all-volunteer force treats military service as a matter of labor economics. In this model, the state fills the ranks of the Armed Forces by bidding for labor on equal terms with other potential employers. Conscription treats military service in wartime as a matter of civic obligation. In this model, the state has first claim on the quantity and quality of manpower necessary to win the war.

Ill do my best in replying to your comments, and hope that this dialogue clarifies the important issues youve raised. If I misstate your objections or omit any of those who made them, please let me know.

Political feasibility. (Charles Spiegelman, Scmedlap, COL Gentile, Tom Donnelly) The most common objection to conscription is that its very unpopular with the public. However, the very unpopularity of conscription is its greatest strength. Linking protracted wars to conscription requires political leaders to convince a majority of our countrys 300 million citizens on the wisdom of the proposed war aims. The AVF sets a far lower bar - to fight a protracted war with volunteers, we need only borrow enough money to induce just over 100,000 people per year to enlist.

Effect on strategic decision making. (Chip, Tom Donnelly, Torch, COL Gentile, Schmedlap, Torch.) Skeptics question whether a conscript force would constrain leaders from engaging in unnecessary wars, and often cite Vietnam as an example to the contrary. I view conscription of high-quality recruits without waiver or consideration for socio-economic status or political connections as one of three conditions to induce caution in our strategic decision-making. The other two are adhering to the Constitutional requirement for a Congressional declaration of war, and paying for the ensuing conflict through increased taxes and/or decreased spending in other areas. Its worth noting that FDR asked for all three measures prior to World War II, and that no subsequent president has followed his example.

Quality. (Charles Spiegelman, Chip, COL Gent ile, Anonymous, Cole, Ken White.) Opponents of conscription often claim that a conscript force will necessarily be of lower quality than a volunteer force. This argument is flawed on both logical and empirical grounds. Unlike the AVF, a conscript force need not accept whatever the labor market will bear. Conscription legislation can fix both quality and quantity requirements in law, and punish those who evade service. Moreover, the denigration of conscript forces is based on a selective reading of history. A more balanced view would acknowledge that the conscript Army of 1944 was far superior to the volunteer force of 1975. Such a view would also acknowledge that the quality of volunteer forces fluctuates based on economic and battlefield conditions. In the early stages of Iraq, a booming economy and an unpopular war caused the Army to enlist an increased number of high-school dropouts and criminals. When the 2008 recession hit, the military raised quality standards and cut bonuses.

Cost. (Schmedlap, COL Gentile, Ken White.) Labor economists argue that a volunteer force pays a lower cost for labor than a conscripted force because of increased retention, among other factors. However, these economic analyses do not factor in the cost of alternative strategic outcomes. Had Congress linked the invasion of Iraq to the imposition of conscription, I doubt very much that the United States would have gone to war. This conflict has already cost our country $700 billion, and its ultimate cost may exceed $2 trillion. Its unwise to exclude the cost of unnecessary wars from a debate on paying for military forces to fight such wars.

Size. (Tom Donnelly, Torch, Chicken Little). Only Tom Donnelly acknowledged that the AVF is too small, that the burdens of war are borne by too few, and offered a policy proposal to remedy these failures. He advocated increasing the volunteer force by 200,000 or more. This proposal is as laudable as it is implausible. The AVF competes in the labor market, offering enlistment bonuses nearly equivalent to Americas median household income to induce young people enlist. Dramatically increasing the AVFs strength would require equally dramatic increases in enlistment bonuses and further reductions in quality standards.

Representativeness. (Tom Donnelly, Slapout, Schmedlap, Eric.) The debate over the degree to which the most privileged Americans serve in our Armed Forces could be resolved in one keystroke. The Pentagon already defends the representativeness of the AVF by parsing recruit household income by quintile. I am unaware of any other economist or demographer who analyzes wealth using this measure. The accepted practice focuses on the top 1%, which owns 38% of our countrys wealth, and the top 10%, which owns 70% of our wealth. If senior leaders chose to do so, the Pentagon could answer conclusively the degree to which the wealthiest Americans fight our wars.

Civil-military relations. Tom Donnelly expresses concern about my adherence to the norms of civil-military relations. I appreciate this admonition, and hope others will call me out if ever I violate our obligation to respect and defer to civil authority. Let me reiterate my absolute commitment to civilian control of the military, and acknowledge the limited and subordinate role that military advice plays in formulating policy decisions. I believe that my defense of Congressional prerogatives to declare war, raise military forces and fund military operations is fully consistent with the norms of American civil-military relations. These constraints on executive authority are found in the US Constitution, and emerge from a historical suspicion of the pernicious effects of debt and standing armies on the health of a republic.

Ill close with a note of appreciation for the intellectual rigor and civility in this debate. Thanks very much to my friend and colleague Colonel Gian Gentile, long-time SWJ contributors Ken White and Schmedlap, Tom Donnelly at AEI, and all those who have commented, as well as our intrepid editor Dave Dilegge and publisher Bill Nagle. This debate is one worth having.

Respectfully,

Paul

Slap,

Even if you are in the top 1% of income earners before joining, you won't be once you join. Your wage will be somewhere on that pay chart, which ain't gonna be top 1% anymore.

I don't know the cutoff for top 1%, but I do know of (no longer an acquaintance with) four millionaires in the Army (probably the 7-digit variety). One is a General, one is a field grade, two of them are enlisted and nearing retirement. I don't think their wealth made them better Soldiers, though I could be wrong.

I don't know why the wealth issue even matters. Even if no rich people serve, so what? As long as our units can kick ass when necessary, I don't care who they are or what their financial history is. If you can deploy worldwide to shoot people in the face, then I don't care how fat your wallet is. Just don't hold us up during the customs inspection.

Thanks, regarding the quote of the week win. I'm proud of the inaugural victory, as I suspect it will cement my legacy. Kind of like the legacy of Royce Gracie is secure because he won UFC 1.

I sharply disagree with slapout's last post. Encouraging lawmakers to participate in war will not make them any more prudent. It will simply attract wannabe warriors into the government - people who fancy themselves as modern day Caesars and Alexanders.

That said, I don't think we're in any danger of such a plan being adopted.

I also don't think representation of the upper classes in our volunteer military are as low as many perceive. I met more people from the upper class and upper-middle class in the Army (even more in the ARNG) than in the civilian world. Maybe that's a reflection of my lower-middle class upbringing and my current volunteer work that puts me in contact with less financially well-off individuals. I never got the impression in the Army that I was in a force unrepresentative of the nation. Ideologically and culturally, perhaps it was not representative. But in terms of economic opportunities prior to joining, socio-economic background - I think the military represents our nation better than any other.

LTC Yingling,

The military must share the blame. Before we consider conscription to create a more equitably shared burden of military service, I believe the military's recruiting practices should be reformed. The military should invest much more and make better efforts reaching out to the groups you say are underrepresented in the military. IE, in terms of ROTC accessions, the military has virtually turned its back on the urban Northeast and specifically, New York City, despite that NYC houses the most college students in the country in some of the best-regarded universities in the world. An obvious and doable solution to the problem you pose, while preserving the AVF, is increase the military's access to currently under-recruited groups with simple steps like housing ROTC programs on Columbia University's campus. At present, though, ROTC practically avoids Columbia and NYC's population of college students; it's no wonder they're underrepresented.

See http://www.securenation.org/rotc-in-new-york-city-an-untapped-resource/

LTC Yingling argues that a conscript Army would be employed more judiciously because our elites would have a political and possibly personal stake in its employment. Schmedlap identifies the socioeconomic role of the AVF and the political weight of the military industrial complex (thought he doesn't call it that). COL Gentile cites a fundamental problem with the willingness of our political elite to sanction open-ended employment of our military. Mr White argues (among other things) that LTC Yingling misses the capability gap between the conscript Army and the AVF.

As a Marine, I know that my own Service suffered badly as a conscript force in the late Vietnam era. I also know that our recent growth to 202,000- while larger than any Marine Corps in recent memory- is still too small for the deploy:dwell ratios that our senior commanders profess to be necessary. And I know that our leaders have grown a near-reflexive aversion to the idea I'm going to suggest:

Cut the military to the bone.

Historically, after each major conflict, the US military (Army and Navy) endured huge reductions in personnel and equipment. Entire fleets rusted at anchor in the Potomac (their bones are still there for canoeists to poke through) and massive numbers of soldiers demobilized. It absolutely hurt us when our Nation next faced aggression, but our two-ocean moat has bought us the time and space to react and rearm. And it prevented us from embarking on massive, open-ended colonial wars: after the Philippines insurrection, not even the invasion-happy Marines embarked on anything as ambitious in scope, because ours was a small military for fighting small wars and remaining ready for the Big One.

But at the end of the Cold War, with our sole peer adversary prostrate, we chose to keep a large standing military in arms. Rather than think about the economic cost of maintaining a large military, our leaders focused on the economic benefits of the defense industry, and the civilian jobs associated with maintaining the world's largest military.

And in the years since, all the administrations have seen fit to use the military in ways its founders would never have foreseen. The mere existence of a massive military has made it a tempting tool for the interventionist advocates of liberal and conservative administrations alike.

Maybe we should take that tool away.

I think it's time to do a real strategic review, not the quadrennial paper-chase that produces a vanilla document on which everyone can concur happily. Let's take a long, hard look at the eroded economic power of the United States and assess just what kind of military adventures we want to embark on. Where do our true strategic interests lie? And what kind of force do we need to secure them? What would a drastically scaled-down military look like? What's the pareto curve tradeoffs between national interests secured and military expenditure incurred? What do the military forces look like on each end of that curve?

What size active-duty force do we truly need to defend our borders and secure our strategic interest at the optimal rate? How would an Army optimized for ground combat against a peer adversary look? How would Reserve and Guard units augment it in time of major overseas war or national emergency, and what is the distinction between the two scenarios?

Do we really need 12 carrier battle groups in a future likely to be dominated by UAVs and cruise missiles? Can we project a global strike capability more effectively with a submarine-heavy Navy? Do we need to execute precision raids with NSW forces, and more anti-piracy missions? What ships would we need for that?

How many divisions and aircraft wings does the Marine Corps really need? What capability set does it provide that neither the Army nor the Navy could or should provide? What is the role of the Reserve in the Marine Corps, and can we look at maintaining only small units (company and below) that would augment active duty units and let their often-ineffectual augment the active duty staff sections during a major campaign?

What kind of capabilities does the Air Force need to bring into an increasingly automated era? I have to admit, as a ground-pounder Marine captain I'm not really competent to ask the right questions of the Air Force, but it seems to me they are the Service most heavily impacted by the emergence of UAVs but also have the best opportunity to make lasting changes to their mission set and structure as a result.

I think we need a serious discussion about the role and responsibilities of the US military as a Joint Force. I think our service cheifs need to think more broadly about the kind of force they can provide. I think our political leaders need to think more conservatively about the interests that justify the employment of our forces. And I think that there's no chance in hell this thinking will take place in the E Ring or the Russell Senate Office Building: there's no constituency for it.

v/r
Torch

Regardless of the soundness of arguments for or against a return to the draft, a couple of 21st Century American realities and elements of political correctness would hinder it for these reasons:

1) Women would need to be drafted in equal numbers with men

2) Weight and PT test standards in a society with overweight and unfit teens would need to be altered.

3) Education standards waived.

Can see it now. More kids getting fat at age 18 to avoid the draft. Other kids flunking out of high school on purpose. Suits filed to demand equal drafting of women.

What you see as a path to greater political participation, some see as reduced choice and greater government control over their lives. You and I chose the military, so it doesn't seem like a big deal to us. Others did not choose the military. Allowing the military to choose them is not likely to strengthen our republic, in my opinion. I don't think anyone perceives that we need a draft in order to survive. So it is now a matter of preference. To suggest that the preference outweighs the importance of freedoms that will <em>by necessity</em> be intruded upon seems like a losing argument to me. Using it to satisfy your idea about how political participation should manifest itself and how Congress should assert itself seems like an improper and even dangerous justification.

<blockquote><em>"... attributes necessary for todays wars: the ability to speak foreign languages and operate in foreign cultures, engage in complex moral reasoning about the use of force, as well as bear the heavy physical and psychological burdens of combat. Many of the young people who possess these attributes also demonstrate a low propensity to volunteer for military service."</em></blockquote>
Where did you get the data to support that assertion?

<blockquote><em>"Unlike the all-volunteer force, a conscripted force of citizen soldiers would ensure that the burdens of war are felt equally in every community in America."</em></blockquote>
You are not going to succeed in spreading "the burden" around. The upper class will use political connections, shop around for doctors, spend gobs on legal representation, and do whatever else is necessary to avoid service <em>if they don't want to serve</em> (some <em>do</em> want to serve - and <em>do</em> currently serve). Also, what about undocumented non-citizens - now a significant portion of our population? Among the lower class, what do you with thousands of people who simply do not report to the recruiting station? I suspect there is far less social pressure to conform today than in the 1940s and 1950s.

<blockquote><em>"... conscription enables the military to be more discriminating in selecting those with the skills and attributes most required to fight today's wars. Unlike the all-volunteer force, a conscripted force would not rely on exorbitant bonuses and reduced enlistment standards to fill its ranks."</em></blockquote>
So our interest in manning the military with <em>better qualified</em> individuals at allegedly <em>lower costs</em> trumps our interest in one's <em>freedom</em> to choose his or her employer? I don't think so, in the absence of a perceived existential threat. Also, how motivated are those people going to be if they don't want to be there? I would argue that one of the most important attributes required to fight "today's wars" is embracing the values of your service branch. You are not likely to get that by forcing people to join.

<blockquote><em>"... this approach would be less expensive."</em></blockquote>
I'd like to see the cost estimates.

<blockquote><em>"Imposing fiscal discipline on the Pentagon would not only strengthen America's depleted finances, but also constrain executive ambitions for adventures abroad and congressional appetites for pork-barrel projects at home."</em></blockquote>
As noted, your cost estimates would be interesting to see. But even accepting that they are accurate for the sake of argument, this last passage seems problematic. How does a draft rein in pork-barrel spending? Have you ever heard the re-election ads for Congressmen in Georgia and North Carolina? They make no bones about it. They vote for whatever brings military jobs to Georgia. Same is true in many other states. That's not pork-barrel spending? And it won't get worse with a larger force?

If there is a "need" for a draft, I'd rather it be for a force that is focused, not on overseas defense (i.e. DOD), but homeland defense (e.g. border security). The investment could benefit DOD and/or the NG in that there'd be better trained candidates for a volunteer military via a transfer/enlistment. There'd also be a far better domestic support, since the force would NOT be a "tool" for someone's "War for Oil" and similiar rot.

Again, I don't advocate a draft. But if we must stipulate that it must occur, I'd like to see this idea given full consideration.

I'm curious what the history is supporting the idea of a drafted force as a catalyst for success in an irregular warfare campaign.

To me, the far greater risk comes from a media, not particularly disposed toward OEF or OIF, and motivated to break a story, matched up with a drafted force that isn't not fully committed to effort.