draft or national service?

[Caroline]

I'll never forget their reaction when I told them what I was planning.
My mother cried. (Korea was just in about the 3rd. quarter from being played out).  My father basically said "where do I sign?"
Mothers are wonderful!

lol -- my story is only slightly different, because I was 18 and didn't need permission to enlist.  My mother cried, and my father said:  "Bet the Navy can teach you to clean your room."

He knew a thing or two, my old man did.
Caroline

 

[Nords]

Are you confident that conscription will not be reinstated?  I am not so sure.  As I am working out of the country today, I do not have my finger on the pulse and I can't trust anything in this foreign press on the subject.  These clowns don't have a clue about reality in a country with a real army doing a real job.

However, it appears to me that the retention rate in the Army is not good at the moment and the reserves are running out, but the job isn't done yet and exit timetables are controversial. 

I have a personal interest in the answer.  My boy just turned 18 and I don't think he could get the same deal today as I did by enlisting.  (By the way, I was a draft-dodger--I enlisted.    )

Your opinion--and that of Nords--would be appreciated.

Cheers,  Ed

Woops, you hit my button. 

I spent nearly eight years training all types of sailors & officers at various types of technology & warfighting.  Training is hard work and there are many obstacles that prevent your students from being able to devote their full attention to the material, even if they want to.  One of the key differences that separates the U.S. military from those of the Russians & Chinese is that our enlisted are trained to be technically skilled and qualified to use their leadership & initiative.  It's highly unusual in those militaries for the enlisted to challenge their officers on technology or operations, but in the U.S. military that healthy challenge is the norm.  (On submarines, the only piece of equipment that officers are allowed to operate is the periscope.  It breaks frequently, which proves to the troops the folly of letting their officers operate ANYTHING.)  I shudder to think of having to administer a training program to draftees who don't necessarily wanna be there in the first place, let alone want to be combat leaders.

Speaking of training, military guys are trained to do what the Commander in Chief says.  Whining is not tolerated and retirements will be swiftly administered for dragging feet.  (Remember all those Vietnam-era flag officers who later wished they'd retired in protest?)  In light of the general "Yes Sir" mentality, it's noteworthy to remember that Colin Powell firmly planted both feet and stared down Bill Clinton over letting gays serve in the military.  (BTW I think Powell was wrong, but that's another post.)  My point is that Powell's obstinance ain't nothin' compared to the howls of outrage & mutiny you'll hear from the military's flag officers if Congress or the President try to reinstate the draft.  It will even make Colin Powell break his silence to start a press campaign.

You remember the Navy's 1950s "Revolt of the Admirals" that led to the Treaty of Key West?  Same deal, only more contentious.  A draft would dumb down both the level of training and the morale of today's military and cause an entire chain of command to exit in disgust.

IIRC (from history books and my Dad's stories) the conscription term was two years.  Today the average Navy recruits need two years just to have the opportunity to learn their jobs.  Some enlistments permit as little as two years of basically unskilled conscript (Deck Div) labor but the program isn't a raging success.  The majority of enlistments are for a minimum of four years, of which much of the first two are spent on basic & advanced training.  Highly technical fields (nuclear, electronics, aviation, intel) require six-year enlistments with two-three years of training & qualification before the command benefits from the sailor's skills.

In the mid-90s the Navy got a little too good at drawing down from the first Gulf War (we're still paying the price for poor officer recruiting in '95-96) and by 2000 we were spending huge bucks to attract recruits.  (Remember Spike Lee's "Accelerate Your Life" commercials?)  Finally the Chief of Naval Personnel, VADM Ryan, was told that it was costing $50K to entice each new sailor into an enlistment contract.  He asked "What if we paid it out in bonuses to our reenlisting sailors?"  Reenlistment rates doubled within a year and far fewer recruits were necessary.  The Navy actually saved money by paying its sailors more.

As a recruiter, it makes no sense to let slip the "news" that recruiting is doing well.  You want the program to appear to be perpetually on the brink of disaster, especially by the media.  The last six months of every military fiscal year (April-September) are classic recruiting "brinkmanship" months.  The typical news story is "Ohmygod we're losing every soldier at the end of their enlistment, and we can't find any more!!"  Congressmen receive tailored briefings on the soldiers & recruiting stats from their states, governors huddle with their National Guard commanders, and sober flag officers tell Anderson Cooper that the military will cease to exist in 18 months if this situation isn't turned around.  Budgets are boosted, money pours down, bonus bucks flow, Spike Lee makes another commercial, and suddenly it all works out in September!  Somehow the retention rates were salvaged and just enough recruits signed up!  Some of them are even high school grads without prison records!!  Suddenly in October (a new fiscal year) the retention rate plummets to zero and all the new recruits flunk out of boot camp.  You see how the game is played.

Norb Ryan is one of the last flag officers to see a force of draftees and he retired a couple years ago.  Today he's running the Military Officers Association of America, a potent Congressional lobby for military benefits & programs.  These are the guys that brought you TRICARE for Life, the restoration of full combat-related compensation benefits, and the recent improvements to the SBP program.  MOAA does not support a draft and will work with its other military lobbying organizations (The Military Coalition) to kill any support for the program.  I believe MOAA's track record will enable them to stop a draft.

The new Chairman of the JCS, GEN Pace USMC (how 'bout that, Jarhead?!?) is another draft-era officer.  Pace is known as an infantryman's Marine (yeah, I know, they're ALL infantrymen), and although it's hard to believe this about a Marine, he tends to be a bit stubborn & outspoken.  He also does not support a draft.  As the first Marine CJCS since the billet was created, he will have the credibility and the firepower to keep it from happening for at least the next four years.

Personally I support raising military pay and bonuses.  I support that because every time it's been done in the past, retention has soared.  (It sure worked on me.)  If we keep the troops happy then we won't need as many recruits, and happy troops tend to recruit their own replacements.

But hey, that's just my opinion.  We need a few active-duty people to chime in with theirs.

BTW my nephew joined the Army Rangers because he didn't think he could handle college.  It turned out that he could handle two tours in Afghanistan and behind-the-lines operations in Iraq before the war, so at that point he decided college might not be so bad after all.  This week he's starting his junior year at West Point.  He can't imagine leading draftees either.  (I've also managed to change his mind on women & gays in the military, but that's another thread too.)

Ed, if your son is a high-school graduate with at least a 2.5 GPA and any interest in the military then I'd be happy to point you in the direction of good deals from ROTC, service academies, and the GI Bill.  I don't know about the draft era, but today's military is a better deal for training, experience, responsibility, and a living wage than it's ever been since 1978.  Back then I was a tremendous amount of testosterone-poisoned potential with no self-discipline.  The Navy gave me a lot of discipline and helped me realize my potential (we've given up on the testosterone poisoning).  If the military can do that for your son, then it's at least as good a deal for him as it was for you.

 

[brewer12345]

Nords, I sincerely hope you are right, but I cannot help but think that if the US gets dragged onto or starts another conflict that is more than a minor squabble, the existing military won't be able to handle it without either redeploying resources from Iraq or conscription. I suspect that it would be a political decision which course to take, not a military one.

 

[Eagle43]

Actually, Brewer is correct. It will be a political decision. He's wrong about what the decision will/would be. There is no political majority for re-instating the draft. And, as NORDS states, the training alone is longer than the old draft term, so it would have to be a 4-6 year draft just to get return on the investment.

I think a military career is a good deal. It got me out of NOLa, got me out of poverty, got me a college degree, took me to Europe and Asia, and steered me toward Mega-Corp. Also, got a pension from both. You can state that the poor and underpriviledged lean towards the military, and you'd be right. I was both. So what? Just make the rich and the priviledged pay for it. It was good for me any way you look at it. But, do it voluntarily. If we're drafting, let's start with congressional children and grandchildren FIRST, then move on to Harvard and Yale grads.

 

[justin]

If we're drafting, let's start with congressional children and grandchildren FIRST, then move on to Harvard and Yale grads.

The first group are pretty much all members of the second group

 

[Jarhead*]

Actually, Brewer is correct.  It will be a political decision.  He's wrong about what the decision will/would be.  There is no political majority for re-instating the draft.  And, as NORDS states, the training alone is longer than the old draft term, so it would have to be a 4-6 year draft just to get return on the investment. 

I think a military career is a good deal.  It got me out of NOLa, got me out of poverty, got me a college degree, took me to Europe and Asia, and steered me toward Mega-Corp.  Also, got a pension from both.  You can state that the poor and underpriviledged lean towards the military, and you'd be right.  I was both.  So what?  Just make the rich and the priviledged pay for it.  It was good for me any way you look at it.  But, do it voluntarily.  If we're drafting, let's start with congressional children and grandchildren FIRST, then move on to Harvard and Yale grads.   

Eagle 43: Last year when I sent in my income tax, I pinned on a note. "Make sure Nords gets his share of this". I will add you to my note this year.

Because of technology, blah, blah, blah, I agree that the draft has outlived it's usefullness. (When I was in the Corps., the ability to break down your M1 and put it back together in 60 seconds blind-folded was "high technology". (We were basically cannon-fodder).

What I would like to see happen is that every draft-age young person be obligated to a 2 year (non-combatant) term of service to the U.S.
(Absolutely no deferalls).

 

[brewer12345]

What I would like to see happen is that every draft-age young person be obligated to a 2 year (non-combatant) term of service to the U.S.
(Absolutely no deferalls).

This would be an economic disaster. You'd suck a lot of resources (labor) down the gummint rat-hole and stifle a lot of education-related investment on the labor force.

Let's not get into the political boondoggle this would cause as well.

If it were a mandatory 2 year military service term, you would also have a mass exodus of people like me to Canada. I imagine that many of my ilk are very well educated and do high value-added labor, this would probably be pretty painful as well.

 

[Martha]

What I would like to see happen is that every draft-age young person be obligated to a 2 year (non-combatant) term of service to the U.S.
(Absolutely no deferalls).

I really like this idea as well, despite Brewer's comments. Potential to be a great equalizer.

 

[retire@40]

I haven't thought it through completely, but on the surface it sounds like a good idea to mandate 12 to 18 months of military service for every kid coming out of high school, before going into the workforce or to college. Some people may even like it and make it a career.

I think it would help pull the country together and create more of a sense of loyalty to the USA.

 

[REWahoo]

If it were a mandatory 2 year military service term, you would also have a mass exodus of people like me to Canada.

Better be careful Brewer. There are many who would support the idea on this premise alone...

 

[brewer12345]

I haven't thought it through completely, but on the surface it sounds like a good idea to mandate 12 to 18 months of military service for every kid coming out of high school, before going into the workforce or to college.  Some people may even like it and make it a career.

I think it would help pull the country together and create more of a sense of loyalty to the USA.

Uhuh, but aside from this fuzzy notion, what would this actually accomplish? All I see is a colossal waste of manpower and a huge cash gummint outlay (all those conscripts would require food, housing, etc.) to accomplish not much beyond the further militarization of our society. No thanks.

 

[laurence]

I could entertain the idea if there were choices on the mandatory service. For example, if you could do Armed Services, Peace Corp. or Americorp. or other related services of your choice, that might work. But you can't have deferalls for the wealthy and/or connected. Bad voodoo.

 

[bogart]

to mandate 12 to 18 months of military service for every kid coming out of high school, before going into the workforce or to college. 

Mandatory national service is a nice term for slavery, is it not?  aka -- Involuntary servitude.  How about if it applies at random to people of all ages, rather than just shafting young people?

 

[REWahoo]

Mandatory national service is a nice term for slavery, is it not? aka -- Involuntary servitude. How about if it applies at random to people of all ages, rather than just shafting young people?

Shafting young people is excellent training for the realities of life.

Rule #1 - Life ain't fair
Rule #2 - See rule #1

 

[bogart]

Shafting young people is excellent training for the realities of life.

Rule #1 - Life ain't fair
Rule #2 - See rule #1

One of the ideas of civilization is to try to make some progress. Seem like this kind of sentiment has taken a real beating lately

 

[Jarhead*]

Better be careful Brewer.  There are many who would support the idea on this premise alone...

 

[Eagle43]

Eagle 43: Last year when I sent in my income tax, I pinned on a note. "Make sure Nords gets his share of this". I will add you to my note this year.

...
What I would like to see happen is that every draft-age young person be obligated to a 2 year (non-combatant) term of service to the U.S.
(Absolutely no deferalls).

I want more than NORDS, so there! And thanks for your support.

I had your last point about compulsory service in my original post but deleted it. I like the idea, but I know the unions would raise hell. Then everyone could contribute to the country, without having to become militaristic. What would they do? I dunno, but infrastructure improvement's not a bad idea. Sure could use them in a certain bayou city right this moment. Incentives, like a year's college for every year served or some such would be appropriate.

 

[bogart]

Why can't this country pay people to work on the infrastructure without resorting to compulsory national service? People seem willing to pay through the nose for giant houses, giant vehicles, exotic vacations, private airplanes, beach property, boats, and so forth. Re compulsory national service -- seems like early retirees would be a prime pool to draw from . . .

 

[REWahoo]

Re compulsory national service -- seems like early retirees would be a prime pool to draw from . . .

Sure, all 150 of us...

 

[bogart]

Think of what 150 supermen and wonderwomen could accomplish . . .

 

[azanon]

The military's a ripoff if you ask me.  Join only for charitable reasons, to help out/defend your country.  Outside of that, you can make just as much money in the civilian life, with the exception that your life isnt at stake, and you dont pseudo sell your soul to the devil (give control of your life away).

I was an AFA cadet for about 4 months.  The experience just sucked, to be honest and blunt about it. For about 2 weeks, they begged me to stay trying to convince me the grass wasnt greener on the other side. Oh yes it was; much much better than the so-called elite military school (or one of them anyway).

 

[moghopper]

I really like this idea as well, despite Brewer's comments. Potential to be a great equalizer.

I like it too, but I'd be against it, because the government would turn it into garbage. I want the government to spend less. Why? I've said it before - because ultimately, most things they do turn into the DMV.

 

[HFWR]

If the gummit involves us in a war, it should be justifiable enough to entice patriotic Americans to join...

Fav DMV story: when I first moved to Texas, I went to DMV to apply for Tx drivers license. I filled out the form, with the blue Bic pen on the table with the forms. I stood in line for 45 minutes or so, and upon reaching the window, was told the form had to be filled out in BLACK ink...

 

[Caroline]

Fav DMV story: when I first moved to Texas, I went to DMV to apply for Tx drivers license. I filled out the form, with the blue Bic pen on the table with the forms. I stood in line for 45 minutes or so, and upon reaching the window, was told the form had to be filled out in BLACK ink...

I took my 78-year-old Irish mother to Immigration (INS) to (finally) become a U.S. citizen. We entered a room with a counter full of clerks at the far end, and a maze of velvet ropes winding back and forth across the room -- the kind that you see at Disneyland, etc. to manage VERY long lines of people.

Because we got there VERY early to avoid the crowds we were the first ones in. Rather than snake back and forth across the room a couple of dozen times I ducked under the ropes.

"Go back and do that RIGHT!" shouted one of the clerks behind the counter. "If you can't follow directions you can't become a U.S. Citizen!"

"I'm already a citizen," I informed him. "See this little white-haired old lady here? SHE'S the one you get to abuse today, not me!"

Unbelieveable.

This was actually more funny than upsetting -- he didn't scare me and my English-speaking mother was well able to take care of herself in any case. But I can just imagine what some poor, limited-English, LEGAL immigrants are subject to in the process of getting their green cards / citizenship.

Next, we went upstairs to pay $90 to the cashier -- no credit cards or checks accepted. We scraped up the money between us and paid. The elderly woman behind us needed to pay the same amount but only had $20 bills. Too bad -- no change given, even though WE had forked over $90 in small bills just seconds earlier.

You've just got to shake your head...

Caroline

 

[Nords]

Nords, I sincerely hope you are right, but I cannot help but think that if the US gets dragged onto or starts another conflict that is more than a minor squabble, the existing military won't be able to handle it without either redeploying resources from Iraq or conscription. I suspect that it would be a political decision which course to take, not a military one.

Well, arguably redeploying resources from Iraq (Afghanistan, Bosnia, Korea, Germany, Okinawa) can't be a bad thing. It'd force the national command authorities to decide what "priorities" are really important. We used to call the strategy "Fight, fight, win, win" or "Fight, hold, win, fight, win" or "Europe First!" or something like that...

My spouse can attest that much of PACOM's current efforts are obsessed focused on not getting into any more schoolyard scuffles. We're heavy on diplomacy & foreign aid, baby...

In his book "It Doesn't Take A Hero", Norman Schwarzkopf tells how in 1988 his CENTCOM staff was updating the contingency plan for containing Iraq. The powers that be declared the plan good and in 1989 directed that it be placed in motion. That involved wiping slick the current computer database of who goes where with what and reloading the new database. Right after the "wiping" but just before the "reloading", Saddam decided to holiday in Kuwait. You can imagine the logistics chaos that ensued. "Help" was all over CENTCOM and looking over both their shoulders.

So today the military fights & dies by the TPFDD acronym. (I'm three years into retirement so I'm not sure that I'm still spelling it right, or even calling it by its correct name.) The big computer database essentially says "To do THIS, you must have THESE troops with THAT stuff on THOSE ships & planes over HERE by THEN." Donald Rumsfeld has sincerely regretted forcing Ric Shinseki into retirement over the last TPFDD debate, so the next time someone asks for a new wag the dog war the JCS will respond "OK, what do you want us to give up?" and cooler heads will prevail. In a way the decision will indeed be political. Because there ain't much military logistics options left.

If it were a mandatory 2 year military service term, you would also have a mass exodus of people like me to Canada.  I imagine that many of my ilk are very well educated and do high value-added labor, this would probably be pretty painful as well.

Maybe I'm being oversensitive, but did you just propose having the U.S. invade Canada and use our well-educated high-value-added labor to take over their economy? Who'd be feeling the pain here?

I could entertain the idea if there were choices on the mandatory service. For example, if you could do Armed Services, Peace Corp. or Americorp. or other related services of your choice, that might work. But you can't have deferalls for the wealthy and/or connected.

Robert Heinlein's book "Starship Troopers" (the version without Denise Richards) took place in a society where you became a citizen and earned the right to vote ONLY by completing military service. Otherwise you were just a member of the worker class who got no respect. I think that concept would be great if it included public service like the Peace Corps or Americorps. But what would the young Latter-Day Saints think of being required to do both govt service and a religious mission? "Render unto Caesar" indeed...