<p>One of the presidential candidates has proposed military service or community service such as the Peace Corps for young Americans after high school. Any thoughts about how conscription would affect our military? How would expansion of the US military affect current or soon-to-be junior officers?</p>
<p>It's never gonna happen. There is no call for conscription from the military and there is certainly no support for anything like conscription from the broader population. While it might be a good thing for society from the standpoint of broadening the shared perspectives of the population, and perhaps would make the issues surrounding the employment of military forces less alien or academic to the average voter, but the professionalism of the military would be degraded significantly- which is why virtually no western country(or at least no country that envisions using its military ) has conscription anymore . It's just not gonna happen.</p>
<p>If you mean the Universal Voluntary Service Plan I don't often agree with Michael Kinsley but he seems to have nailed this one. "If it is universal it is not voluntary and if it is voluntary it certainly won't be universal." By inference and some direct statements by staffers and surrogates an extension of this plan will include mandatory selective service registration for women. The ACLU is in the process of filing suit against selective service stating that it is discriminatory since only men must register and only men are punished if they do not register. All in all it would probably become the nightmare it was prior to 1973. For a junior officer it is bad enough when one or two have a bad attitude, imagine if it is your whole platoon, division, flight, etc.. We will go from Macnamara's 100,000 to somebody's 1,000,000.</p>
<p>It would not be good for the military. The morale issue and the financial problems caused by training so many people (and only gaining a few years from each) would be very difficult.</p>
<p>From a societal standpoint, it may be good, but I think there are probably better ways.</p>
<p>
[quote]
...Today, the active Army is short 3,000 captains and majors, and 58 percent of recent West Point graduates are choosing to leave the force--double the historic average. We do not have a single combat brigade at home in reserve, ready for an unexpected crisis. Our National Guard and Reserves have only half the equipment levels they need, hampering their ability to respond to crises, foreign and domestic. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will strengthen the military and enable more men and women to serve their country in the armed forces.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is a comprehensive and important document that Americans, especially military families, need to read.</p>
<p>OK. It all sounds great and will only cost 3.5 Billion a year. You give these kids a choice of Americorp, Peacecorp, Greencorp, whatevercorp and military service. I can't see them beating down the doors at the recruiting office. Getting back to the 3.5 Billion a year. In Fall 2007 there were eighteen million men and women in college (National Center For Educational Statistics). If we are going to give them each $4,000 a year that comes to Seventy Two Billion Dollars a year. Talk about voodoo! That was only one proposal. Where does the money come from for all the other inovative programs?</p>
<p>Well- standard political mumbles with some serious disconnects - consider a couple of these: The 65,000/27,000 increase in the Army/ MArine Corps is already underway and has been for several years. Want to know how that's going to change things for junior officers? Not much is the answer- it's the mode they are already operating under. They are going to limit deployments, increase home station time, and limit Reserve deployments to once every 6 years and only going to add 65,000 to the size of the Army? Not going to happen. The reason that the Army was >15month deployments and deploying the USAR/and NG the way they are is because it is significantly undersized. 65,000 isn't going to change that significantly- try 250,000 if those are your goals. As far as a 4 star National guard member of the JCS- so what? An excellent counter argument could be made that all that will do is cause the use and planning for the NG to become more fragmented and dissociated from the active duty USA and USAF- if the Army National Guard and the AF National Guard are not subordinate to the Army and Air Force- does effective use of those forces in the over all force planning and shaping improve?
There are plenty of things to commend requiring some sort of service of americans in return for benefits ala these "corps" that they are proposing- but this document is long on words and short on any change at all for the military, and so the answer to the original question (how are things going to change for Junior officers) is: not a whit.</p>
<p>Oh it will effect them greatly. Believe me, NCOS with ten, fifteen, eighteen, or twenty will not want to handle the problems related to the conscription force. They will kick it up to the Junior Officer for him to handle. The JO will be spending a lot of time in the barracks or the company area adjudicating stupid transgressions. Why should the NCO risk his career if he can hand it off to a "higher" authority. "Sir, I think you should address the problem with seaman, airman, private Doe." It happened before and it will happen again if universal conscription becomes the new policy.</p>
<p>AF6872- If conscription were even a remote possiblity I would agree with you completely. But the way I read this campaign plank is total fluff - it doesn't call for conscription and it doesn't really fund or even discuss how it will accomplish any of the things that they are "promising". It's a huge puff piece. Having said that- I'm all in favor of making government assistance for things like college loans and grants etc...contingent on some kind of service similar to most of the civil programs that they have suggested- but nobody in the military who has any memory of the draft or the post vietnam military would advocate anything returning remotely close to a draftee Army.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can't see them beating down the doors at the recruiting office.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wait a year. If the economy continues to tank and the current job situation worsens there will be a ready and motivated supply of individuals grasping at any potential for employment or training. Throw in some decent educational incentives, technical training, etc and you may surprised. If the shooting ever stops in the middle east (ok well that’s a looooooong shot) they will be lining up in droves… </p>
<p>Consider another ramification of the current economic cycle; if you combine the recent spikes in cost of living largely driven by energy with the decline in investment value of most retirement funds you have an environment in which more seniors will delay or put off retirement. If your labor market is at best stable or more realistically, declining, you have job compression that will inevitably impact many younger Americans entering the labor force, particularly those individuals with limited job skills. </p>
<p>On the other end of the spectrum we are on the verge of a crisis in internal medicine, (some might say already there). At most med schools a very small percentage of kids are choosing to be generalists; to become your family doctor. If we are not there today the pending health requirements of our baby boomers will most certainly drive the system over the edge. Flip the conscription around (some states already do this) and help with med school and give back to your community/country as a physician in a position that most doctors avoid. </p>
<p>If you’re a clever president you offer to build 435 training/recruitment centers in every congressional district in the US. As far as the cost and how you pay for it all? You do exactly what has been done with the last 150 billion dollar stimulus package and much of the 700 billion dollar bail out…you just turn on the printing presses and pass the bill onto the next generation and the next and the next….</p>
<p>The average person would think that maybe those that will pay the tax bill for all this should get something in return for these “checks in the mail” like maybe work?? How about community service or military service? </p>
<p>Given the current and anticipated conflicts we also have to get away from our fascination, some would say infatuation with obscenely complex weapon systems and focus once again with developing and maintaining a qualified, highly trained, sufficiently rested, ground force. We have to stop expecting the few to do the job of the many. </p>
<p>I agree with most that has been said in regard to the probability conscription will ever occur and the potential impact it will have on our armed services. I am concerned however about the declining percentage of Americans that have had any exposure to military service, much less served, at a time when we are loosing the generation of Americans that served in both WWII and Korea. Within a decade the percentage of Americans that ever wore a uniform will drop dramatically. I sincerely hope that the appreciation and understanding of the importance of our armed services does not decline in kind. Such a disconnect between professional soldiers and the citizens they serve is not a healthy condition for any democracy.</p>
<p>I thought we were still a "country at war"??? </p>
<p>Considering the events of the past 7 years and the deployments of a military ground force that has not been adequate in terms of numbers, I don't see how you can not eventually have a draft and still follow those policies. I mean you either pursue those policies and have a draft or you don't. You can't do it all on an all volunteer force. What would have happened had a THIRD front on the War on Terror broken out in addition to Iraq and Afganistan? We couldn't do it with an all-volunteer force in WWI, WW2, Korea, or Vietnam. We could not have prosecuted ANY of those conflicts without a draft. The arguments that the "career volunteer soldier" doesn't want to deal with the conscript is irrelevant. THEY WILL HAVE TO, if they want to win the war. The lessons learned are that whether it's a "popular" war or not, there never seems to be enough "volunteers" to make it work with volunteers alone. I mean, if we can't get enough volunteers after an event like Pearl Harbor or 9/11, that's lesson enough for me. I find it troublesome that the "citizen-soldier" of our past is destined to disappear forever in the wake of an all volunteer force that does everyone else's fighting for them. If it's important enough to go to war over, then its important enough to have conscription to get the troop levels we need, and then we would be darn sure the route we are taking is the right one for the nation.</p>
<p>Apparently someone in this thread is privy to numbers that I haven't seen. The Army and Marine Corps both beat their recruiting targets and reenlistment targets last year and this year to date, and USMA and ROTC certainly has no shortage of applicants. The army is the size it is and is forced to do multiple deployments and stop loss and mobilizations because of blatant political incompetence stretching back thru 15 years and two administrations which "crystal balled" a world where conflict was short, sweet and technologically driven- (victory thru air and robot power!")- a pipe dream that persisted thru 2006 despite the overwhelming evidence that they were wrong and that boots on the ground and effective control is what determines success in this war as well as most of the forseeable in the wars in the 3rd and 4th world battlefields of the future. Now they are trying to build up a more balance and logically sized force which takes time to man and train. But having said that- who is calling for some type of conscription? Not military leaders that is for certain. That is why even the campaign piece referred to above skirts even the mention of the words - forced, coercive, conscription etc.... the population doesn't want it and wouldn't support such a thing, the military doesn't want it and doesn't need to go to those steps. It's a solution in search of a problem.</p>
<p>"It's a solution in search of a problem."</p>
<p>I consider an undersized ground force during the 2002-2008 time frame a problem. There have been enough published statements by senior military leaders (and our own secretary of defense) over the last few years to underscore that point. Of course no one wants a draft----"so many want to play, not enough want to get dirty". Im sure those drafted in WW2 weren't appreciative of it either at the time (since they hadn't exactly volunteered). Its the true measure of whether a policy will stand up to public scrutiny and sacrifice. Perhaps if there were a draft in 2002, more questions would have been asked and more solutions sought.</p>
<p>Should the general population have a better sense of what is involved in going to war? Undoubtedly. (Though having a population far more in tune with the military didn't seem to stop them from going into Korea and Vietnam with draftee Armies so I doubt whether well reasoned decisions are going to be made by the general population whether there is a draft or not). But- if you want to see a draft- you aren't seeing it in this document. It's a 3rd rail and when you read the link above-the Obama campaign isn't suggesting such a thing anymore than McCain. Do you see them advocating a larger force than is already authorized and being grown? No- they are advocating the force now authorized (+65k end strength over 2006 is the current target growth in the DoD appropriation submitted by the current administration when they were forced to bow to reality and the congress forced to join them there. ). If you really wanted force expansion to do all of the things that they want to accomplish (1 Reserve deployment every 6 years; Army deployments of no more than 12 months; time on home station of 2 years to account for training time as well homestation time etc....) then you would be advocating an end strength for the Army of around 800- to 850k. Do you see anything like that in this document? As far as the practical concerns of a draft- in addition to the motivation and discipline issues- the cost is more in the 10s of $ billions rather than $3 billion because:</p>
<p>A. If you have a draft to add 250,000 soldiers and 50,000 marines- how much is that really going to cost? (Why would you have a draft if you didn't meet those numbers since the only reason you are doing so is to eliminate the issues with the current force structure?)
B. We have the highest paid Army in the world - you aren't planning on drafting folks in and then paying them $50/month ala 1960 are you? You also aren't decreasing the pay for all those volunteers who are now making a decent wage (wouldn't that be a force multiplier!) You will wind up paying all of those hundreds of thousands of draftees just what you are paying the current force. The annual RMC for an E4 with 2 years is calculated at approximately $40k annually without combat pay etc... not to mention infrastructure costs etc... So 300k in additional heads times $40k in salary plus 300k worth of of housing, food, fuel etc =?? not $3 billion.</p>
<p>c. A military draft of less than 2 years is worthless- you have trained gate guards if you have less time than that. Short training or poor training equals death for soldiers so 2 years is the bottom end where any serious discussion would start about for conscripted service. That's also a number that doesn't appear here.</p>
<p>What is proposed in this document is a social engineering project geared almost entirely to civilian projects with only a passing obligatory nod to service in the military as one of the options. It's not a serious force manning proposal. In fact becasue it has had no play in the campaign at all - it's just campaign fluff. Judge it on that- because there is no way that anyone who knows the Army wants or believes that a draft to man the force is needed and I'm sure that both Obama and Biden know that as well as anyone else.</p>
<p>Here's my fearless forecast regarding military conscription that's worth every penny you didn't pay for it.</p>
<p>First, it's not going to happen unless our nation's soil (or that of a close ally) is directly under attack by a formal military force of another country. Beginning with the 'can't we just be friends' parent-child relationship at home, most of our country's youth have been brought up to resist any rigidly-managed organization (with the exception of athletic teams) and to have an even higher disregard for military service. Even if mandatory conscription was ordered, most of our youth, their parents, and the myriad of self-appointed youth advocates would demand an organizational and leadership environment within the military that would make it nearly impossible to create an effective military force.</p>
<p>Second, I doubt conscription will be needed since I predict the 'kinder, gentler' politicians that will likely occupy our national offices will go to almost any lengths to avoid a commitment of significant ground forces in the near future. Additionally, polictical and financial reasons will be found quickly to reduce the present levels of deployed military forces.</p>
<p>Finally, our country's need for military personnel will decline since I think more and more of the logistical support for our future international policing endeavors will be provided by civilian entities. This will no only avoid the need to conscript people for these jobs but also put a non-military label on those positions that will enable our youth to pursue the jobs without the social negativity that is associated with pursuing a military career.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Finally, our country's need for military personnel will decline since I think more and more of the logistical support for our future international policing endeavors will be provided by civilian entities.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I don't disagree as this is obviously already happening in Iraq as well as at bases all around the world, I really am at a loss to understand it. Civilian contractors inevitably come with the baggage associated with a large bureaucratic organization with the same kind of overhead and costs we associate with large bureaucratic organizations. I do understand the reasons, excuses? used to justify this approach, as it allows our armed services the discretion of allocating slots to roles outside of support. Unfortunately the cost of following that approach can be very high with civilian contractors; particularly those outside the US making 10 times the money paid to the GI carrying a gun and putting his/her life on the line. Go figure. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Second, I doubt conscription will be needed since I predict the 'kinder, gentler' politicians that will likely occupy our national offices will go to almost any lengths to avoid a commitment of significant ground forces in the near future.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What we’ve heard to date is Iraq is a “bad” war and we need to get the hell out as quickly as possible but we really need to boost our presence in Afghanistan as that somehow fits the definition of a “good” or necessary war/conflict and as such merits a dramatic increase in troop deployment. Even with a wind down in Iraq, how do you accomplish that mission in the near term without continuing the deployment abuse of our current servicemen and women or expanding our current force size? </p>
<p>The challenge in Afghanistan will be finding some middle ground and not under or overplaying our hand… if the wheels come off the bus in Afghanistan and the conflict spills over to and pulls in Pakistan we now have an Armageddon scenario with a civil war in a country with nuclear weapons. </p>
<p>Many people were beaten about the head and shoulders regarding their lack of an exit strategy in Iraq by those advocating an expanded presence in Afghanistan. Fair enough…so what’s the exit strategy in Afghanistan? When do we get to go home? When the Taliban gives up? When the government can control the country? I hope that day comes. Maybe we should consider dropping some really soft toilet paper, iPods loaded with music, fast food and a few hundred thousand copies of Playboy on our friends in the Taliban instead of precision guided munitions…the prospect of death doesn’t seem to be much of a concern… maybe they just need a reason to live? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Additionally, political and financial reasons will be found quickly to reduce the present levels of deployed military forces
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agreed. As we pulled back into our cocoon after WWI..for political and financial reasons… Ironic as that approach has great potential to create the circumstances necessary to justify a new draft.</p>