Foreign Policy
National Security
-
Leadership
A Silver Bullet to Solve Sexual Assaults
-
War Dogs
Postcard from Bagram
-
Obama
The Neo-Nixonian Presidency
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks
Wednesday, December 9, 2009 - 12:58 PM
Share
Robert Goldich, formerly of the Congressional Research Service, is one of the most informed people I know on a broad range of military personnel policy issues. (For example, he is writing a history of conscription -- I think for "fun"!) The other day he passed along a note of three personnel recommendations he'd made two years ago. Here it is:
I asked him to add what he might do for military spouses. He responded:I [listed] three proposals, of which one has been accomplished (the expanded GI Bill spearheaded, as usual over the myopic opposition of DoD, by Senator Jim Webb). I still support the other two. Note that these are not direct recruiting tools, but are designed to provide a much broader range of opportunities for American young people to become informed about military service as an option and lifestyle.
I've [bolded] key points:
Well, if I were king (emperor would be better), I'd enact a WWII-equivalent GI Bill, which is, in terms of purchasing power, even beyond what Jim Webb's bill would do. Tuition, room and board, fees, etc. for any institution one could be admitted to. I suspect you could recruit to 785,000 Army and the total post-VN Cold War strength of about 2.2 million active duty pretty easily with that. Sure a lot of troops would get out after one term to use the benefits, but I also have no doubt that enough would stay in to grow the NCO corps with at least as much quality as it has now. Besides, it would really shake up a lot of the elite institutions that former troops would then be able to attend -- which might be its biggest benefit to the nation in the long run.
I'd fully fund (which would cost only $100-$200 million more a year, I think) Junior ROTC. Any high school that wants a unit -- there are currently many hundreds on the waiting list, and the total number is capped at, I believe, 3,500 nationwide -- should get one. One of the biggest factors in recruiting is just putting the idea into the student's head that the military exists as an option, and there have been studies which show that JROTC cadets/midshipmen indeed go on to affiliate one way or another with the armed forces at high levels. Of course, there is much self-selection, but the option should be available to all who want it. I emphasize that I would in no way change the substance of the program one bit -- no obligation resulting therefrom, not even any harder sell. I'd also create summer programs for JROTC that cadets/midshipmen could attend at government expense, again on a purely voluntary and optional basis.
I'd create the equivalent of the 1920s and 1930s Citizens Military Training Camps, in which young -- or fairly young people, ages say, 18-25, even 30, could receive one or two or even three months of paid military training in the summer months (on the assumption that most would indeed be students one way or another), with the aim of acquainting young people with military life, perhaps allowing successful completion of the courses, one or more over one or more summers, to count as basic training, result in a reserve enlistment if the individual is so inclined, or give a leg up if going on active duty.
Would all of this cost a lot of money? Well, yes, but well, no, not compared to one Zumwalt-class destroyer, or maybe two, or a couple of LCS's, or a squadron of F-22s or F-35s-you get the picture. And we can easily afford all, and given the maelstrom in which we are living, I think we could swing it. But the services would have to stop treating recruiting as a distinct and compartmentalized area of their operations and realize that they have to be much more proactive in bringing their existence and messages to the nation as a whole. The Army might start by making the head of USAREC a four-star rather than a two-star.
Regarding spouses, I really don't have much to add to the programs that already exist -- I think that fully funding and resourcing them is what is necessary now. What I think would make a difference for military families in general is adding to and broadening the already first-rate DoD child care system, which early childhood education experts unanimously agree is the best in the country, in particular, providing more opportunities for military families to have access to family day care homes on and off-base as well as to DoD's very good day care centers. Full disclosure here: I am Chair of the Board of Directors of a 501C3 organization called Infant-Toddler Family Day Care of Northern Virginia, which is an umbrella organization providing management, administrative, financial, educational, credentialing, and quality-control for about 120 family day care providers caring for about 325 children in Northern Virginia; ITFDC has 16 regular employees in its headquarters in addition to the providers. So I have learned a lot in recent years about day care evaluation, ranking, and needs
I think that's a pretty good statement. As the son of a former Navy sailor who used the GI Bill to get out of rural Utah and wound 10 years later up teaching at Harvard, I especially like the idea that an expanded GI bill would again make elite education affordable for many more vets.
What would you add?
Podknox/Flickr
The Post 9/11 GI Bill is pretty amazing.
It will pay you an E-5 w/dependent BAH (In Boston, that's $2k/month) for housing. It will also pay the school directly for tuition up to the level of the most expensive state school in your state.
Then there are Yellow Ribbon schools. A yellow ribbon school will effectively "split the difference" with Uncle Sam for the rest of the cost. So if you can get into Harvard or Amherst, the differential between that tuition and UMass will be split by school and gov... in other words, you pay NOTHING.
I know there have been issues with vets getting the money released, but this is just amazing.
These are all fine ideas and it does not surprise me that Jim Webb is a key figure trying to bring some sense to personnel issues. Webb was a first rate Marine, a first rate Asst. Sec. of Defense and continues his excellent performance in the U. S. Senate especially as Chairman of the Personnel Sub-committee of the Armed Services Committee. My only complaint is that he is not my Senator from Arizona.
As a former member of JROTC I support the idea of expanding its use across the country because it has wholesome benefits to young people and should be a top priority. Expanded educational benefits also make a lot of sense as the GI bill proved conclusively.
My only concern is that what in the name of heaven does the Army need 785,000 troops for in this day and age? What possible conflagration of such a scale would we stumble into that would require a ground force of that size?
My last concern is the growing militarization of our society. We now have local police forces that look like light infantry units and there is an unhealthy worshipfulness of the military in our society which would disturb our founders and even more contemporary figures such as Eisenhower and George Marshall.
If you want 3:1 Dwell, you need at least 785,000!
JPWREL,
If the Army ever hopes to get to its stated ideal of 3:1 dwell:deploy ratio, it needs at least 785,000 personnel. If the Reserve/Guard are ever going to get back to a state of balance, we need a robust active duty force.
As I state below, we were dipping into the IRR for deployers to OIF less than 15 months after invading. Clearly our Army is too small to handle current requirements. What if something else flares up.
Concur with your increased concern about militarism. The best way to counteract this noxious trend is to maximize the number and breadth of our citizenry exposed to military service. By sustaining a discrete and increasingly self-genrating force, we are reinforcing these militaristic views of soldiers as "other people's kid" and as "warriors" who "volunteer" to be deployed until they (or their families) can't take it any more.
IRR, that’s a good answer that I can agree with concerning the 785,000 in order to get dwell time down to a more sensible 3:1. The only problem is that the cost of manpower would skyrocket with that number of troops. Also, it would seem to me that 2 years is really not enough time to train an effective soldier in this day an age. Three years is more suitable and four years gives a real return to the Army.
Your response to my concerns of increasing militarism is largely behind my idea of introducing JROTC to broad sections of our society. Elite suburban secondary schools have little exposure to military service and mandatory JROTC would help address that issue. JROTC or alternative supervised service in the community would in my mind help expand the horizons of kids at an impressionable age. If some went on to serve in the armed forces that’s fine and likely would be better EM’s for the experience.
JP,
You raise all valid points. My initial response to your concerns would be something like the following:
- Cost. I think the cost is all relative. If shorter terms of service can be proven to increase enlistment propensity among younger, more qualified applicants it will minimize cost increases. To maintain our minimal AVF, we have to cast a pretty wide net - to include 42 year olds with a wife/husband and three kids. That's a hell of a lot of money in housing allowances, TRICARE for dependents, subsidized child care, etc. to buy an E-2. Young, single soldiers and Marines are cheaper to maintain. They also have a lower likelihood of getting injured, disabled (outside of combat) than 36-42 year olds performing the same tasks so the long range costs may be lower. Don't forget the high bonuses needed to get people to assume irrational risks with an extended enlistment. Furthermore, by increasing the number of deployables and reducing the frequency they must deploy, there may be savings through averted adverse incidents such as PTSD, suicides and involuntary discharge due to misconduct or behavioral health concerns. From the studies I've seen, for the Army at least, that 3rd tour is when the chance of a previously stable soldier "going off the rails" skyrockets.
There are so many benefits to a larger force. Lower stress on families. Lower likelihood of crippling PTSD and adverse soldier reactions and a deeper strategic reserve. Also, shorter terms of service may bring some higher quality personnel into the force who may never have considered serving otherwise. The side benefit is that some of these folks may just like it and decide to stay. Also, an expanded accessions funnel will enable us to get back to being, well, selective, in our promotions policy. Things are really out of balance. SGT is virtually an automatic promotion now and on the officer side of the house, promotion to Major is almost 100% and promotion to Lt. Colonel is trending north of 90%. Get a commission these days, stay out of jail and you likely won't face a truly selective promotion board until you are up for Colonel!!
- Readiness. Some will assert that we need longer lengths of service to ensure better training and readiness. I'm not convinced. For starters, the Army already has a 2 year enlistment option though it is not widely advertised, recruiters are not encouraged to promote it and it carries lesser benefits so applicants are discouraged from taking it. The US Army produces trained Infantrymen, Artillerymen, Truck Drivers and Medics in under 25 weeks - some in substantially less time than that (e.g. 14-15 weeks for Infantry). We are currently deploying these kids within weeks of AIT/OSUT graduation. My question: what's the difference if we have them for 2 or 4 years, they're still going to combat with the same training and unit integration time? If we treat them right and put them on a rational/sane deployment cycle many just might stay for 4 (or more).
I can appreciate the "sunk cost" argument of trying to wring that 2nd, 12 month tour out of an Army first-term enlistee. Increasingly, I find that justification morally problematic. It is a KNOWN fact that that second tour is viewed with dread among many who just finished the first one months earlier and there is a higher likelihood that those who successfully navigated the initial combat tour will fare worse the second time around and even worse the third.
In a Republic of over 300 million, a single 12 month combat tour should more than adequately fulfill a first-term enlistment contract and vest GI Bill and Veterans benefits. It was good enough to do so in Vietnam and, in almost all cases, Korea (for initial, first termers).
We are handcuffed by the AVF model which demands the maximum ROI from the fewest possible Americans. That may work in the peacetime light infantry I served in a decade ago, but it is in my assessment morally unjustifiable today because we know the increased harm the added deployments will do and we deploy them again anyway despite the alternatives available.
Tom,
Great post and very provocative. My thoughts on this:
1) Abandon the 4 year enlistment as the "standard" - especially in a time of war. Charles Moskos (RIP) developed a great body of work on this issue. Shorter service lengths have been documented to be more appealing to young people with greater career/educational "options". Moreover, in a protracted war it seems morally indefensible that 2 (Army) to 4 (USMC) combat tours is now the standard expectation of a first-term soldier or Marine. We have over 60 years of studies that document a direct correlation between increased adverse stress incidents with increased exposure to combat. Shorter enlistments will require us to draw our military from a broader range of society and provide a deeper strategic reserve of trained military manpower for contingencies. The need for strategic depth cannot be understated. The Army had to dip into the IRR - our nation's final strategic reserve - for combat deployers only 13 months after invading Iraq. The bench has been continuously depleted and minimal effort has been made to expand it.
2) I do not like the proposal to expand JROTC unless there is some "trigger" (i.e. legislative hammer) to ensure these units are allocated equitably across school districts of all educational performance levels and socioeconomic strata. My problem with JROTC is that it exacerbates the trend of the increasingly self-selected and geographically narrow all-volunteer force. By limiting JROTC to school districts that clamor for it, we are further "writing off" large areas of the country - many of which have the diverse, high-performing and academically/physically qualified students our military needs more than ever. The concentration of JROTC in the Northeast - in majority-minority schools - screams for attention. High performing, suburban schools are not participating in anything approaching their proportion of the HS population. Expanded JROTC - if allocated on the basis of school district interest alone - will continue to be the a red state, rural and inner city phenomenon.
I have come to the conclusion that JROTC is in practicality - if not intent - a "trojan horse" to pre-identify junior enlisted personnel. If it truly is an altruistic "citizenship" course, why is there no push by DoD or Congress to get it into more elite, high-performing schools? After all, if it's all about citizenship, wouldn't it make sense to sponsor such instruction in the very high schools that will disproportionately produce our future leaders and elites? The DoD's silence on this front belies its true motivation for increased JROTC. Finally, if JROTC was really a feeder into college ROTC, why are the Senior ROTC programs not aligned with the colleges that most kids from the JROTC High schools eventually attend? Example: NYC and urban NJ. NYC, larger than Virginia, and Northern NJ, larger than Alabama, have an enormous JROTC population - predominantly in urban, majority-minority high schools and first ring suburbs. Despite this feeder pool of potential, minority Navy, USAF and Army officers, the Senior ROTC units are all located at colleges seldom attended by students from those high schools. The Navy has no college ROTC in NYC, Long Island or NJ other than the closed-entry program at SUNY-Maritime that only Maritime, Fordham and Molloy College Nursing students are even allowed to attend. Both remaining Army ROTC units in NYC are at outer borough Catholic Colleges at the periphery of the subway. Ditto for the one remaining AFROTC detachment left to serve the 19 Congressional districts of downstate NY. The allocation of these Senior ROTC units reveal no serious effort to get the JROTC graduates to actually thrive in Senior ROTC. If such an intent were there, we would be seeing Senior ROTC outreach and instruction at CCNY, SUNY-Stony-Brook, Brooklyn College, New Jersey City University and SUNY-Binghamton - the places that large numbers of NY/NJ JROTC grads actually matriculate to.
Bob Herbert in Monday's NYT echoes the points I made in USNI Proceedings October 2006: Bring Back The Draft. Until the burden of combat defense of this nation is levied on all citizens, who cares about those serving now? Not us. We prove it by letting them serve alone, carry the burden alone, and pay the full price while the rest of us observe through heavy glasses.
Bob Goldich is a National classmate and someone I also respect as perhaps the best voice on these matters. But without a draft, his proposals are for naught and we continue on a path of easy wars and hard sacrifice. The All-Volunteer Force works fine in peacetime, in limited engagements, and in low-intensity conflict. But it absolutely fails in its three primary premises in a time of extended general warfare.
The AVF promises that military personnel quantity and quality will be sustained and that the character of the US military will not be altered. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown all three to suffer badly - the AVF has failed, its people are suffering, and the military has gone from global capability to crippled ability to even handle the Middle East.
Bring back the draft. Let every citizen show true patriotism, as opposed to this easy support of our brave men and women ... as long as we don't know them. Until the average citizen gets some skin in this game, who really cares about the military?
Bring back the draft.
Tom: you should be at the ramparts on this. Screw political practicality: it could be done. And it's the right thing to do. Bob Goldich's bandaids are fine, but let's solve the main problems: war is too easy and the burden on those serving too great absent a draft.
Bring back the draft.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/opinion/08herbert.html?_r=1
That is correct solution but politically not on. Firstly, the armed forces do not want conscription since it brings a dimension of citizen interest in their affairs, which they would prefer not to have. When Johnny gets drafted into the Army from his upscale high school it generates unwanted attention from mom and dad that does not happen when it is only Billy from the other side of the tracks who volunteers for the service. The middle class opposition to this would be unbelievable and politicians are not known for being suicidal.
Secondly, the numbers of available conscripts are so vast that the Army could in practice only handle a small portion of them. Who gets to go? The smartest ones? High school athletes? How about women? You are messing around fire here. :-)
I'm messing around with the basic tenets of American Democracy. Our Founding Fathers believed in two things in the defense arena: a standing army is anathema but the strong defense essential. Thus the words empowering Congress to "raise an army." Thus the creation of the Commander In Chief.
Can it be done, you ask. Well, it worked - imperfectly perhaps but that goes with the territory in a democracy - in the Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea, much of the Cold War, and Vietnam. The fact of the draft was a primary cause of the people's ultimate opposition to Vietnam, ending a bad war. In short: yes it can be done. And if it brings in a crop of Willy-and-Joes, infiltrating the Army with real Americans with real American attitudes towards authority and real families back in the hometown to follow their progress, well, that works too.
I'm reminded of the sign behind the Repair Officer's desk in the submarine tender DIXON: "Don't tell me why you can't. Tell me how you're gonna." We could and should Bring Back The Draft.
I am not sure it would be a wise move to do that
I know you are just tossing it out to get some thought going and I like that you are thinking about spreading out the burden but do we really want a group of totally unmotivated people in the Service? Heck, some of the kids I have seen in now are not exactly motivated. I am also against the draft unless you mandate NO EXCEPTIONS outside of health.
It is kind of a spot on topic, because we are slowly becoming a caste system of a Professional Military Class. A good book called "A.W.O.L" talks about it a bit and I tend to agree with it and it becomes even more obvious when you go overseas and come home and most folks still have no clue what is going on.
"...do we really want a group of totally unmotivated people in the Service?"
Strikes me that defense of the nation is pretty motivating. The recruiting stations had long lines outside them on Monday, 8 December 1941, The draft was never challenged during WWII - by anyone. Come up with a good reason for war and you'll find the motivation.
Start a bogus war for false reasons and then fight it badly (Iraq)? Start a righteous war and then fritter away all advantage (Afghanistan)? Well, then you may have some problems. But we're there, both places, and we owe it to those fighting now to back them up with the nation's strength. That includes a full cadre of new service members, drafted but standing for America. Only then will the nation be able to make a truly balanced judgment about next steps.
What do we have now? "Yeah, it cost money, but my kid ain't over there so who gives a shit."
I am skeptical, I just do not see the kids being motivated, I hope I am wrong but when it is common place to have High Schools not even have the Pledge of Allegiance (At least in New England) or when after 9-11 we did not have lines at the door of the recruiters I am just not convinced of motivation in the youth of America. I see far to many self-involved people and most do not even know what is going on in there states never mind a world away, I just do not see them being motivated to join or not fight the draft. I hope that is all it is and that I am just being cynical though and proven wrong.
I totally agree with you on the "but my kid ain't over there so who gives a shit." but still a skeptic about the draft.
I don't know - the recruiters I know from that period had a very easy time signing up quality recruits in late 2001 and throughout 2002. Personally, I first entertained enlistment immediately after 9/11 (I was 18 when it happened) but decided instead to finish college. I ultimately enlisted 4 years later, but 9/11 certainly was the first time I had ever even considered the possibility of military service.
The Pledge of Allegiance is ridiculous, and is by no means indicative of a community or an individual's patriotism. In any case, the whole "this generation of youth aren't nearly as motivated as the generations before" complaint has never seemed plausible to me. We might have a smaller enlistment pool due to drugs/crimes/obesity, but at the top end of the quality bell curve, today's youth are fitter, smarter, and more ambitious than ever before. And we should make the military an attractive option to those guys with more targeted incentives, not with a mechanism as crude as a draft.
Again, these myths about the quality of American draftees must be challenged from a historical perspective. Even in the "bad war" of Vietnam, RA volunteers had nearly 2 times the AWOL and desertion rates of their drafted comrades. Source: Moskos "Patriotism-Lite Meets the Citizen-Soldier, 2003"
Opponents of the draft oppose even the mere discussion of the idea. When they do engage, they always talk in the context of the Army circa 1971. There were many other confounding factors in 1971 that created an Army in tatters. The draftee/volunteer hybrid force that Hal Moore led into the Ia Drang (and other units like it) were pretty damn good.
Put down the DVD of Platoon and start learning about your Army!
Moskos is a good source, but not the only one. Did you read Hal Moore? Also, who said anything about Vietnam? Are you having a flashback? ;) (Kidding) I just do not see the kids of TODAY being as motivated, I remain skeptical of a draft due to that. Heck, parents were fighting recruiters at schools all over New England, California and Washington, despite the Solomon Amendment, as are colleges, the Homosexual Exclusion was just an excuse to fight it, ROTC and many of the Recruitsment Policies were in place long before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was even in place, ROTC was banned, etc..The parents and the schools really just do not want the Military to have access to there kids or students, it goes back to the "but my kid ain't over there so who gives a shit." "until it is my kid" view.
All this talk reminds me of Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Why not create a system where rights of citizenship in a democractic society (i.e. voting, running for office, etc.) be only available to those who serve for a time in the armed forces? Give rights to those who are willing to give something back. It's not replacing democracy, but co-opting it with a meritocratic ladder system based on service to country.
I think the ideas are good, but what about the natural fight back against JROTC in schools and for the summer training I can already hear the left screaming that we are taining our kids like the "Hitler Youth"! lol
A great guy to read on is William Lind, he is a big proponent of Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW) and I will in fairness state that I am starting to drink the Kool Aid on 4GW. He argues one of our biggest problems in troops, quality and leadership is our personnel system and that is still based on a Second Generation Warfare Style from WWII and that we have far to many officers. Our Current Personnel System has the effect of "up or out", ie..we lose good guys who may not be the best leaders or suited for higher rank but are still good in areas of expertise. We then have to replace these people. He goes on about a lot of other problems with the way people are moved around every 18mos to 2 years and how this effects troops, etc..but I think the one about "up or out" is relevent to the topic of getting and keeping troops.
Lastly, this truly would be a great result of the program of his GI Bill-"Besides, it would really shake up a lot of the elite institutions that former troops would then be able to attend -- which might be its biggest benefit to the nation in the long run." No group is more isolated from the Military at the Undergrad Level than the Ivy League.
Not convinced of Lind's arguments ...
Eric,
I'm not convinced of Lind's arguments and I think they are increasingly removed from the "reality on the ground" in our military personnel system.
Let's talk Army:
- The old "up or out" system is dead for all intents purposes. Virtually automatic promotion to CPT and Major. Lt. Colonel selection rate around 90%. Get a commission and a career (and 4 promotions) are all but assured.
- To compound these high promotion rates, the selectivity to get a commission has decreased dramatically. Selection for civilian OCS candidates who had the minimal qualifications was nearly 100% from 2004 through 2009. OCS now produces over 40% of our RA 2LTs.
The argument of "too many officers" is misplaced. Who will do the staff work, attend Advanced Civil Schooling, and keep the institutional Army running? I would argue that we cut too far into the bone in the early 90's and we lack sufficient officer depth throughout the institutional force (see: Army Acquisition Corps). Now we pay the price. Are officers simply supposed to fill deployable, TO&E jobs and deploy every other year throughout their entire career? If this is your intent, there will be no opportunity for reflection, intellectual growth, civilian graduate education, etc. Lind says we have "too many" officers while we have gaping holes in our field grade ranks and are begging IRR and retiree recalls to fill what were prestigious and nominative positions only 10 years ago.
Marshall and Eisenhower had the foresight to understand that the institutional Army is essential to a healthy, balanced and forward looking force. I believe it should be preserved at all costs.
At a practical level, Lind ignores the fact that Officers are the overwhelming majority of Army personnel who hold college degrees. Do these jobs currently filled by LTCs, MAJs and COLs not require institutional experience and graduate education? Who will do the work? DA civilians, contractors, NCOs? He doesn't say.
One of the most dangerous myths we have deluded ourselves into believing is the educational attainment level of our enlisted force in the AVF. truth: It's not as good as we think it is. In 2004 or 2005, only 3% of the Army's new enlistment cohort had a Bachelors degree or higher and this number included those entering the service for OCS and WOFT. I think 9% had an Associates Degree. By contrast, in 1964 (draft/RA hybrid) something like 17% of our incoming privates had at least 2 years of college - remarkable when you consider that college education rates among the general population have more than doubled since then! To do this "graduate level" of strategic planing, doctrine development and force sustainment, you need a combination of education and experience.
I would argue that we commission too few officers and during the 80's and 90's we adopted an overly optimistic/arrogant predictive tool as to how many newly commissioned LTs would stay for a career. Along comes the go-go economy of the 90's and a never ending war with crushing PERSTEMPO. We are sucking wind right now in the Captain, Major and Lt. Colonel "departments". Thank God no one listened to Lind a decade ago. I couldn't imagine it any worse than it is right now!
Actually he does say and I agree, we have to many officers. Our Current Officer system is based on the 40's when a HS Degree in a enlisted person was not a common thing, it almost mandatory now. Also, the more officers you have the more bureaucracy you have. As for who will train and run things, it will be run by who it has always been run by, the senior NCOs. Most of our guys have to go to Professional Schools, are trainied to high level, many have BS or higher in the Senior Ranks and all a "Staff" does is distance itself from the "reality" on the ground you speak of. If anything we should get rid of as many as we can and keep them in the reserves. Sorry, having a BS degree does not prepare you to lead men into battle on a small unit scale, nor does it mean you should. As for your other points about "Who will do", umm...how did the German Army of WWII inflict a 4-1 casualty rate against us the allies all the way till the end of WWII? Read "Frontsoldaten", "Stormtroop Tactics" and "The Enlightened Soldier". All good reads and they will tell you why they did so well with so few officers to enlisted ratio as compared to what we have today-"Commanders Intent" and "Initiative". Also, how is that our own rate of Admirals/Offices to enlisted was far lower than it is now yet we defeated the Axis? Intent and Initiative are something MORE officers do not encourage. I can tell you right now from being outside the wire that the large amount of Officers did nothing but micro-manage and second guess those of us who were on the ground. More officers = More Micro-Management, More Bureaucracy and Less Inititative and Commanders Intent because someone is always second guessing you during the mission.
As for the UP and OUT, it is alive and well in the Navy and Army and Marines, I do not know about the AF so I will not comment on it. The Navy is even screening ALL personel to see if they have "incidents" in there records and to screen them for possible discharge under the new reviews.
The Army should listen to Lind the Most, he is a large advocate of Light Infantry and Maneuver Warfare, something very much needed in any COIN action is the LI and for any war, Maneuver is key. The Army's idea of LI is evident in the battle of "Anaconda" Having worked with them as well, I have never seen troops so micro-managed and so poorly lead as I did in the Army and most of it was due to being more concerned about safety, career and order over mission. It is cultural.
I just have to disagree with you on this, I see too many officers as an impediment on AD, not an asset. If you want to train up a cadre and hold them in the reserves, I would be fine, but it has not been positive from what I have seen in our current wars.
Eric is right: The Plague of the Officers
Eric is right. There are too many staff officers in the headquarters. A bloated staff spends too much time justifying its existence.
It is possible we do not have enough officers in the Institutional Army. But there, too, is questionable.
The German Army of the interwar years had a small institutional army, yet its officers were still highly effective, with great battlefield initiatives from its NCOs and company grade officers. The US Army really took too much from the French Army, field artillery being a prime example.
I agree 100%, I think the biggest thing that gets us at the senior leadership levels is that under our career oriented and "ticket punch" style of Officer Assignments is that we get guys who take over a company for 18-24 mos. then move on, then eventually roll back around to take over a Batt. for 18-24 mos., etc..etc..this is not a long enough time to actually know your job and re-enforces the ticket punch mentality to make grade and put career before mission and also has the added effect of making many 05's and above VERY risk adverse. The JO's who get out, especially from the Academies all cite the micro-management, risk advers mentality from the senior officers as a major reason for getting out after the obliserve time is up. A guy should be in charge of a Batt. more than 18-24 mos., you do not even get exactly what you are doing until about 6 mos. into it and by the time they are pertty good at the job they are rotated out. Makes no sense and only hurts us in the long run.
I would also add that the "myth" of education in the Military of the enlisted is a bit of a blind spot, the numbers you say for the people coming into the service I would not be shocked by as far as those who have BS degrees. Here is the rub though, by the time they become Senior NCOs, most I know have at least an Associates or BS and the Navy and Marines even looked at making it a requirement for E7s to have an Associates, E8's a BS and E9s a Masters. Sorry, a degree does not a leader make and we would still have plenty of officers to do the "Big Picture" on the strategic level.
I hear you, but it's not the 90's anymore ...
Jimmy and Eric,
I hear you loud and clear. I may not agree with you but I hear you. I'm just trying to say that many of these "problems" were more prevalent in the late '90s than they are today.
The Army is in real trouble right now just covering down on critical positions. I say again, when we are begging IRR and Retiree recalls to fill what were until only recently nominative (ie. prestigious and only for the top 1/3 of officers) assignments, we don't have "too many officers." We have too few.
Tom Ricks even addressed this here a few months back by highlighting the reality that aging retiree contractors were writing new doctrine in TRADOC - 1) because we eviscerated the TDA Army in the 1990's; and 2) because there is no one else left to to write it.
We have removed many of the opportunities for officers to rest, "take a knee", think, and reintegrate with their families. This will have huge implications down the road.
At the risk of coming across as dismissive, I don't know how much government experience the "we have too many officers crowd" has from the inside of government. Majors are the rough equivalent of GS-13s and LTCs are the rough equivalent of GS-14. In the government, people at those grades do staff work, write doctrine and do program analysis. If not "green suiters" than contractors or DA civilians have to do it. The risk is that by chasing all of the "Green suit" TDA slots out of the system, you are exacerbating the terrible PERSTEMPO being faced by the field grade officer ranks right now and making an Army career an even more daunting and life-sucking undertaking.
We are squandering our seed corn. Nothing says this louder than the fact that we don't even have RA officers to spare to TRAIN the next generation of Army officers. The majority of ROTC instructors are now contractors, retiree recalls or mobilized reservists. HRC is looking for IRR officers to be the XOs and S-3s of Infantry Training Battalions as well as OCS TACs. To anyone familiar with the Army and the importance of this training, this should be alarming. The Army's innovative BOLC II experiment - killed a few months back. Why? You guessed it, not enough CPTs, MAJs and NCOs to spare to run the school. If we don't have combat seasoned CPTs to train LTs headed to combat we have really big issues. For the record, these CPTs are not at some joint staff somewhere, they're in units trying to hold the operational Army together.
The Army followed a lot of Lind's logic and that's why outside of the Medical Community, there are almost no LT and junior CPT TDA slots left outside of IET units - there haven't been for about 15 years. The problem is that when you don't build "slack" into your force structure, you get hit by a 2x4 when a protracted war hits and attrition increases and combat casualties come. The result: automatic promotions and systemic shortages. You can give a CPT 36 months as a Company Commander, but how do you ensure that you will have enough MAJs and LTCs to expand the Army when you need to. This is a zero error game here and its best to err on the side of caution.
There are many ways to achieve Lind's goals without blindly cutting officers. You could ensure longer Command times simply be making many of our Functional Area specialties such as Public Affairs, Acquisition, Organizational Research and Analysis, etc initial accession career fields. Right now, the Army requires its officers to command a company just to have the shot of spending the rest of their career as a PAO, Acquisition/Contracting officer or "numbers cruncher." The Army is the only service that doesn't assess these specialties at the O-1 level. maybe it should start. This could be seen as a "waste" of Command time.
IRR,
You got lots of good facts, and lots of bad conclusions.
"The Army is in real trouble right now just covering down on critical positions."
This question, and most of the questions about officer manning can be solved with this one easy caveat...."What is a critical position?" The Army restructered to a BCT system but the old-fogey generals (to use a term coined in another thread) had to maintain their status quo. All the staffs are still there, some bigger than before (great example look at MNSTC-I...OMG).
A top down evaluation needs to happen and every general staff cut in half - if not cut in total. 300 some odd generals in our Army - and only ten divisions. Something seriously wrong there. Everyone of those generals has one of those staffs - in need of justifying their existence.
Everyone of those staffs would be better off elsewhere - doing the institutional things you, IRR, are crying for. Manning the schoolhouse, writing doctinre, taking a knee. Whatever. No one called for "blindly" cutting officers, but you have to be a blind to not see where all the fat is - and where it ought to be redistributed.
This problem feeds most of the others. Large staffs micro-manage. Down to the Bn level they are caught up with so much administrivia they can't think straight esp when 1 or 2 HHQ above there is another do-nothing calling for a report of limited or no value. Meanwhile said BN CDR has a troopy lose a sensitive item (or something else 'unusual' happens) and now the interest, pressure and stupidity from above forces him to exert another level of stupid supervision over his own force - just to alleviate the pressure.
CPTs and LTs are getting out because they aren't learning their trade, they are being micro-managed, and most of all they watch the MAJs and LTCs above - and they aren't having any fun - and say why do I want to hang around for this shit? (My Masters thesis was done on exactly this subject - with 750 respondents worth of information - and that was in 2002). Nevermind the GWOT extending for 8 years.
And if you guys like what Lind has to say try on Vandergriff's "Path to Victory" and/or "Spirit, Blood and Treasure."
Have to agree with Hunter and disagree with You on this
The Army has never followed any of Linds suggestions on Personnel Assignments or on Commanders Intent or Initiative. I have seen all to often a cadre of 05's and above micro-manage the people under them to the point that it was on the verge of people being back in Colonial style regimentation (Ok, that was a bit of an overstatement ;) )
Another great read on this is "Command or Control?: Command, Training and Tactics in the British and German Armies, 1888-1918" by Mart Samuels. It is what we want to do for leadership but rarely do, ie; allow our people to make mistakes, learn from them and use that so that they can become better leaders. I just have never seen the Army do that, the Navy is notorious for it, the USMC is better but dependent upon the O's, part of it is the career oreintation and the zero defects mentality. It really requires a major cultural shift in our thinking on leadership I think.
Just Advertise High Military Pay
If the Pentagon would simply advertise the great pay our military enjoys, recruiters would be overwhelmed. Tell a prospect that after 3 years in service he should be at least an E-4 and with two kids he will earn $45,500 a year, plus excellent medical, dental, child care, 30 days paid leave, 13 paid fed holidays, and special paid long weekends off, plus extra for special pays. That's a lot more than new college grads earn.
http://militarypay.defense.gov/mpcalcs/Calculators/RMC.aspx
Then he can retire 17 years later with medical benefits without contributing a cent toward retirement. If the truth would be told, even the Army would be swamped with recruits. The troops know this, which is why reenlistment are no problem, and in the Navy and Air Force they force junior enlisted out because their isn't room in the career force.
However, if the truth emerged, Congress may take note and end years of pay raises at twice the inflation rate. For example, Social Security will not increase in 2010 because inflation is flat, yet the military and federal employees will enjoy a 2% pay raise. Why? What about all the talk about the need to cut spending.
athletics and military enlistment: a paradox
It's really a paradox that, with the emphasis on high school athletics in the American culture, we still have so many kids physically unfit for military service.
If we can fix that problem, perhaps that enlistment problem will go away.
The Brass have used that as a dodge ...
Jimmy,
Although the Army leadership and PAO community love to blame increasing rates of youth obesity for our recruiting woes, I'm not convinced. For starters, the Army has completely gone about things the wrong way to mitigate the impact of this trend, if it were indeed one of the main problems.
Think about it. Many of the Army's prime recruiting markets today (e.g. the South and urban areas) have skyrocketing rates of obesity - among virtually all age groups. Logic would dictate that a more agressive outreach strategy should be directed towards those populations with lower likelihood of disqualifying conditions (e.g. students at high performing high schools or affluent suburbs). Of course, this outreach hasn't happened. With some exceptions, rates of obesity and smoking are very closely tied to socioeconomic status and educational attainment. Instead, we are doubling down on the same areas, zip codes the AVF has always relied on; except now, we take them at 41 as well as 19.
If obesity were really the main problem facing the Army on the accessions front, wouldn't it make sense to invest in at least a half-hearted effort to recruit individuals from areas with lower rates of disqualifying conditions? I think so. Instead we bitch and moan about intractable social and public health problems with complex root causes instead of developing culturally and regionally appropriate messages to tell the Army story to all of its enlistment eligible people. No, Army Strong doesn't cut it ...
Hey, if the Army can handle felons as recruits, why not fatties? Seems easier to get a guy skinny than to turn a crook honest.
Here is one thing though, a lot of the "Crimes" guys were getting waivers for were mostly minor stuff, in the USMC they had to get a waiver if they even got arrested for a misdemeanor. One of the guys in the other posts had stated and linked to a study that the real problem of recruits was due to inability of recruits to either graduate HS, pass the ASVAB or be fit enough. The study said 75% of all of potential recruits, that seems a bit high to me but I do not know how they came by those numbers, so I will just remain a skeptic on it for now. So, maybe the combo of weight/fitness, testing and HS degrees are truly the real problem that the Army has to figure out how to deal with?
An Army Travels on its Stomach
Sergeant First Class Orville P. Snorkel reminded me, "an army travels on its stomach." And on a prevous blog's note, I also ran into Sergeant First Class Louise Lugg, the Sarge’s girl friend, who told me fraternization was under control also.
The new GI bill is great. It figures that Jim Webb would spearhead it. Who better would understand, than a Vietnam veteran? I never could figure-out Captain McCain USN (Ret)'s opposition to it? It can't be money, considering all the airframes the guy wrecked as a Naval Aviator, at the tax payers expense.
Urban areas are not a prime recruiting spot, that is a holdover from Vietnam. Most of the kids today come from the Rural Middle Class.
They are the only large feeder in major Metro areas ...
Eric,
I disagree. Having been in recruiting command in NYC, trust me, the bulk of enlistments in the Northeastern Metro areas come from urban neighborhoods. Have enlistments declined there overall since 2003? Yes. That said, they have not been replaced by an uptick in suburbanites. If you were to spend a day at NYC MEPS, you would not see a collection of youth that even closely approximated the youth population of the whole NYC MSA. That's a fact. The suburban whites and Asians would be conspicuously absent.
This is why the Army puts such a premium on JROTC market penetration in urban schools (see comments above).
I think your facts are a bit off due to you location
The Military has the data itself on this topic, this is A FACT, the majority of the Recruits in the armed services come from the rural middle class. If you are a recruiter IN a heavy urban area, of course your recruits are going to come from an urban area.
Caucasions are also over represented in combat deaths compared to population, this is again, a fact. These things are not hard to check out, they are even printed in the Military Times online and the Combat Deaths have even been broken down by race, state, zip, etc...minorities are harder and harder to get in the service due to many of the things mentioned in some of the posts. The question is how do we change this education and cultural attitude wise among the kids in the states today?
Eric, you completely missed my point ...
Eric,
In your haste to fit reality into your preconceived world view, you completely missed the point I made. You can re-read my post. I never refuted the indisputable FACT that the Army's entering enlisted cohort is heavily comprised of rural and exurban middle class applicants.
What I did say is that minorities in urban areas still reamin a sizeable contributor to the Army's entering overall enlisted cohort - despite a decline since 2003. When you look at major, Metroplitan areas (e.g. NYC, Mid-Atlantic and Southern California Recruiting Battalions, minority youth still provide the lion's share of RA enlistments - this is a fact. Participation %s of white and Asian suburban youths is still anemic
I follow these facts and trends and have since 2001. Here are some Army stats from FY 2008:
- Maricopa County, AZ - #1 county for RA enlistments at 1,141.
- Harris County, TX - #2 County for RA enlistments at 1,
- Los Angeles County, CA - #3 county for Army enlistments at 1,093
- Bexar County, TX - #4 County for RA enlistments at 820
- Cook County, IL - #5 County for RA enlsitments at 594
And on and on it goes ... 3 of NYC's 5 boroughs (Brooklyn, Queens and The Bronx) are in the top 34 counties.
Are urban minorities a declining share of overall enlistments? Yes. To pretend they do not still comprise a significant share of the Army's new soldiers is false. Hence the high focus that the Army places on Junior ROTC in these areas.
Finally, combat death rates by race/ethnicity is not an accurate proxy. As I've railed before, with "point of sale job reservation", 100% percent of the Army's enlisted cohort select their job/MOS prior to spending a day in the Army. These leads to well documented trends towards self-selection. The Infantry and cavalry communities are growing increasingly homogenous (rural and white) while the Combat Service Support community is overrepresented by minority servicemembers. Much of this has to do with the dominat buying motive of the applicant (e.g. "service to country" vs. "adventure" vs. "job training."
Your last paragraph is important. Exurban, suburban and some rural kids - middle-class ones at least - join for adventure and to serve (not that others don't join to serve). In some cases it is looked at almost like a "gap" year or four.
Urban and minority kids sometimes join for those reasons too but also for the GI Bill benefits later and to gain marketable skills.
As a slightly relevant digression, I spent some time in school in Heidelberg in 1977 - the very early years of the all-volunteer force and during the post-Vietnam days. I got to know lots of GIs there. Almost to a man they talked about the prospects the recruiter sold them on but most of them ended up "driving a truck."
Of the five counties you mention above, three of them - Harris, LA, and Cook - are almost 100% urban and heavily minority. So the idea that the army has become this place where middle-class white kids go, to the exclusion is of urban minority and/or working class kids is silly.
IRR, yes, minorities are still a big contribution to the military but no longer are they in excess of the population that they have in the general population. Blacks are even on the decline in proportion to the representation they have in the general vs military population. Maybe I misssed your point though, will re-read it again and get back to you. I just go by the Military overall, maybe you are speaking for the Army that is still a heavy minority area, but overall, the largest demographic is still white, rural kids, this is according to the entire military. Maybe that is my dis-connect with you on this, I am talking overall service and you are talking Army?
jsinaiko, the overall recruits are still mostly white, rural middle class, they are the largest demographic. That is military wide, IRR is spot on about why most white kids join and why a lot of minorities join but that is a past example and a bit outdated on the minority side due to other oppotunities out in the civilian world, whereas the combat jobs that many rural, middle class kids want are not available any other place. While the Military is attempting to make more inroads into the minority community, I do not see the turn around happening for a long while, it takes time and knowing how we tend to advertise sometimes I am not sure we will get it right.
Edit-just re-read your post IRR, you are talking Army only it seems, I have been talking about the Military. The USMC and Navy have not had recruiting problems nor has the Air Force, so I think that is where the dis-connect is in our views.
Eric,
Points well taken and I support your statement re: the USAF. For example, If I recall correctly, the USAF currently maintains only 1 recruiting station in the Bronx (Fordham Road). The Bronx has a population roughly equivalent to the entire state of Maine. While the Army still has 7 or 8 stations in the Bronx, the USAF has only one. I chalk this up to two factors: 1) higher USAF accessions requirements (e.g. age, single parenthood, AFQT/ASVAB scores; and 2) The USAF has a much easier time making its assigned recruiting mission in other places.
A word of caution in interpreting statistics concerning minority enlistments vs. the US population as a whole: you really can't compare the two. This is my principal problem with the papers issued by the Heritage Foundation on this subject. You can only compare those persons that actually enlist with the ENLISTMENT ELIGIBLE population they are drawn from. In other words, there is a far higher rate of disqualifying conditions in poorer populations with lower educational attainment and socio-economic status (e.g. obesity, asthma, immigration status criminal record, academic ability, etc.)
So, when you factor in the much higher rates of disqualifying conditions among enlistment eligibles in places like Harris County, TX; Cook County, IL; and Bronx County, NY, these places may actually have a higher percentage of enlistments per enlistment eligibles than many other areas. This is the problem I had with Heritage's study which was designed to "prove" that the "bottom 20%" of American youth (by family income) were not overrepresented in the ranks. Well duh, the lower 20% are far more likely to be afflicated with disqualifying conditions. Therefore, they comprise a much lower % of the nation's enlistment eligible population than Heritage suggested. A true analysis of enlistment by race and family SES can only be undertaken by looking at rate of enlistments vs. enlistment eligible population with those variables. Broad US population vs. military population comparisons don't cut it.
I can understand being a skeptic of the Heritage Fnd. but..
the Pentagon did a study too and found that minority enlistments, blacks especially, were starting to fall below the numbers represented in the general population. They are so concerned that they are targeting minority areas, which of course always bring up the problem of people screaming "you are only targeting minorities!" lol, one of those you can't win things I guess. You and I both know that the military breaks everything down by every factor-race, religion, area, etc..the one thing they do not factor in is economic background, some of the study cites the zip codes of the enlistments from recruits as a graph for economic background, ie; if the zip code is middle class then the kid is middle class, if the zip code is rich then the kid is rich, etc...so I can see being skeptic on that but the military itself are crazy about gender and race count and that is what I rely on for numbers and even the CNO of the Navy and the Commandant of USMC are looking at ways to attract more Minority Officers and Enlisted due to the drop off in elistments below the population representation. The thing no one seems to really check on though is the reason why, minority groups in particular, have dropped off so much, the pentagon hasn't at least and I think that is why so many people rely on the Heritage Foundations Study for information on that topic.
Eric,
You are dead on about the Army never taking the time/effort to ask the "why" behind current recruiting and career field self-selection trends. This is long overdue.
A friend of mine still on active duty, sent me a link this AM re: a new RAND study that looks at officer career field choices among ROTC Cadets by race/ethnicity and the impact that this may have on senior officer diversity. For some reason, it gets released on Christmas Day. My understanding is that the main conclusion - if you can call it that - is that the Army needs to conduct a complete analysis of these trends.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0833048023/ref=pe_5050_13791870_snp_dp
One of the things that struck me during my time in Recruiting Command was how much the "minorities don't want the combat arms" myth was taken as an article of faith among the Command's hierarchy. As an officer on AMEDD Recruiting Duty, I spent a good amount of time visiting the enlisted recruiting stations in NYC, Long island and Northern New Jersey. In each station there is a "DEP board" with pictures of the recruiters (y axis) and photos of who they enlisted (x axis). Information on bonuses, MOS of choice and college/HS of attendance were always listed. I was always struck at how minority recruiters from the combat arms fields (Infantry, Cavalry, Armor) seldom enlisted youth that looked like them in their own fields. After all, logic would suggest that they would be the best spokesman for those MOSs. When I asked the recruiters about this, the usual answer was something along the lines of: "the company first sergeant and/or battalion sergeant major want us to push the "soft jobs" beacuse "Infantry doesn't sell in the city." So little faith was put in the value of a first hand endorsement and the ability of recruiters to persuasively "sell" their own life experiences.
At MEPS, it was very much the same. Each week the guidance counselors (who sell the actual jobs) received their "top 25" list of top MOSs to push on new applicants. It was amazing how the "pitch" and offered options differed by race and home zip code. While there may be a good deal of sense to this "micro-targeted" approach, I don't think it's the best way to ensure the broadest pool of talent winds up in each career field. In the 10th Mountain, I saw too many minority studs stuck in co-ed support units who were "sold" on spending 4 years in a warehouse, , motor pool or kitchen at MEPS but who had the innate resilience, temperment and ability to excel in the Infantry. Too bad that option was never offered to them in a culturally appropriate or credible way during the enlistment process.
The Gov't spent a lot of money on RAND so that they could tell them that they need to do a study on something the guys in the ranks have been saying for a long time! Classic! lol
On a serious note, it seems that many recruiters sell one idea to the inner city kid and another to the rurual/suburban kids? I was always curious as to why so few minorities served in the combat arms, I think part of the problem is that we tend to also put down the Infantry as "knuckle draggers", "Grunts", etc..(All words I say with pride ;) ) and maybe do not sell the idea of the intangibles you get out of serving in the combat arms well enough?
drafts. There was some conscription fir the USMC (GIRENES) and Navy in 1944-45, but since then, and before then only the army accepted draftees.
So what the USAF, USN, and USMC get is not relevant to this discussion - it is assumed that the draft is army only. At least I assumed it and I think so did those of us who remember the draft and know something about it.
Yeah, ok, so, the USMC had it but wouldn't in the future and we want no exemptions but only the Army would have a draft in your "world"? ;) Hmmmm.....It takes all of two seconds to google info you know, might want to remember that if you are going to "attempt" to sound superior. Also, had family who were drafted and were not in the Army, they must have been in another country I guess when they got drafted. (take the sarcasm with a grain of salt ;) )
As for draft idea we are talking about, it was always about all branches, never isolated to the Army not sure how you came to that conclusion and in WWII and WWI it was all branches but in your world it would only be the Army? I would love to hear your explanation of that one to someone. Please, expand on your idea.
My father-In-Law was given a choice of the USMC or the army in 1942 and he chose the USMC. And some guys were given the same choice but between the army and the navy. Of course in those days the air force was part of the army. WHen the USAF became an independent service it was volunteer only and always has been.
That leaves the army, navy, and USMC (and the Coast Guard, but it's pretty small and also has always been all-volunteer).
I am not sure why you assume we are talking about a draft for all services when in the past it has been strictly the army. Please show me where it has ever been posited that conscription would go beyond the army. As stated earlier, the navy and USMC accepted some draftees when dealing with manpower shortages during WW II but other than that the draft has always been strictly an army-only operation.
Go Read all the posts-"the military" does not = only the Army
Why would YOU assume we weren't when in the past ALL services were drafted?!?! So, because he was given a choice as to what branch he was drafted into then he was not really drafted? You cannot think that is not a draft still, right? Do you read your posts or any others? When people say "The Military" you assume they are only talking about the Army? Common sense would dictate that any draft would include all branches as in our previous wars. Seriously, go use google, the draft has been used for all branches, your line of reason is a bit absurd but if it makes you happy in your world, rock on.
Only the army accepted draftees. None of the other services ever did, excepting a short period during WW2. Nobody here has mentioned any other service in the context of a draft except the army. Period.
So calm down and lose the attitude and you might get more traction. Your tone is extremely unpleasant.
Let's ask the guy who brought up the draft in this thread, Rubber Ducky: Duck - were you thinking about any service other than the army when you wrote "bring back the draft?"
Eric: please give dates when the draft was used for services beyond the army other than during that short period during WW2 when the Navy and USMC accepted some draftees. Not the navy not the USMC, not the Coast Guard, not the USAF. Only the army. Period.
Why the hell do you think so many people enlisted in the Navy during Vietnam? If you can prove I am wrong, please find the source and post it here.
Rubber Ducky is a girl, not a guy and...
Dude, you still think your GF, because he was offered a choice of where he got drafted to it was not a draft? As for my attitude, don't say things in your post the way you do and you will not get one back. When you come off as though some things are "silly" do not expect it not to be used back on you. If you come off as though because you were alive during the draft that you are somehow now a subject matter expert on it and act like you would know better and then not expect to get it back. In short, if you do not like, do not do it. I had a great talk with IRR and have had the same with many others. So, if you are that sensitive and feel that I was impolite, check yourself as well. Also, how do you know what my attitude is? This is email :) Oh, anyway, you show me where we are only talking about the Army in either Rick's Column or the Posts? Again, does the "Military" when used in a post = only the Army to you? When someone says JROTC that only = the Army JROTC? Also, umm, why are mentioning the USCG? Are you attempting to cloud the argument again with silly insertions?
So, again, in your world, ONLY the Army would draft? What you did was you read the discussion that IRR and I were having, had to toss in your two cents, were off on some things and I called it out and now you are digging in and refusing to address any of the questions or tell me how since we used the draft before for all branches (There was no AF in WWII it was the Army Air Corps) we would not use it again? Lastly, as someone on AD and from a family who had many people drafted in Vietnam, it was not just the Army that did it. I suggested you use google, go, use it, it is not polite to ask someone to do the work for you when you have already been asked once prior to that. I also would not hang myself out here if it was just WWII that we used the draft for other branches. Also, if you get drafted and have a choice of what branch you go in, that is still a draft, so do not try to use that route when you do your research that because you were not specifically drafted into that branch it does not count. Really, it is just good manners ;) (See, now that is attitude, sarcasm is something I like and feel free to toss it back ;) ) Oh, here are some start dates for you 1948-1973.
Even I will admit, my last post was a bit snarky, sorry. I will try to tone it down, but please, discuss things back with reason and logic not emotion and I will stop being so snarky.
Last thing though, even our current Selective Service System is set up to Draft for ALL branches, not just the Army. A lot of this info is available, no one would ever support a draft that did not include the other services, the Flag Officers themselves with the possible exception of the Marines would not support a single service Draft and our whole system is set up for it that way. Look, yeah, I was being a bit snarky and I am sorry for that but it tends to irk me when people put things out and then instead of saying "hey, I made a mistake" or "hey, I did not understand the question" etc..they dig in and react. I should have just pointed you in the right direction to clear things up. I also tend to have a huge advantage on these topics due to being on AD still and having access to things that most do not. So, I will try to temper my snarky ways (but they will still come out if provoked ;) ) and just point out things more. Please though, I expect the same back, actual debate, like what IRR does, not a ton of emotion, fanatical kool aid drinking or ignoring of facts.
Gotta lay off the multiple Starbucks! The conversation will go better with a little less adrenaline.
It was my FATHER-IN-LAW and yes - he was drafted as I wrote, during that small window when other services accepted draftees during WW2. That is the ONLY time any service except the army accepted draftees. Period.
Nobody is provoking you to be snarky - you have to deal reasonably with people who disagree with you and who challenge your version of the "facts." Hard discussion and robust argument doesn't mean it has to turn nasty - it's about mutual respect.
The fact that you are on active duty isn't particularly important unless we are discussing something that is going on right now this minute or in the last year or two, which we aren't. I am not ignoring facts - it is incontrovertible that the draft for almost all of its history going back to the Civil War was for army only.
The shorter hitches that draftees serve makes the sort of long-term technical training that is more common in the navy and USAF more difficult and less attractive for those services. It's a problem for the army too - always has been and more so now - but let's face it; training an infantryman is less complex and requires a lower skill-set on the front end than training an avionics technician or an operating engineer. Back in the days when most seamen were shoveling coal in a bunker or earlier still pulling lines in the rigging it was less difficult to train young kids. Hell, the Royal Navy spent centuries filling their ranks with impressed seamen. But often they were already experienced sailors - that's what one of the causes of the War of 1812 was; boarding US merchentmen and impressing their crews.
Even in the UK, where the navy has always been the more important and professional service, during periods of conscription - 1916-1918 and 1939-1945 - draftees went only to the army, not the RAF or the RN.
So making the draft an all-service operation doesn't make a lot of sense. Especially because the navy and USAF could always depend on people who were about to be drafted deciding to write their own ticket a little more by enlisting in those services. Being an alternative to getting 10 weeks of basic, being given a rifle and sent to a repo-depot was always one of the best recruiting tool the navy and USAF had. I know a lot of guys a year or two older than me who joined one of those arms because they knew they wouldn't end up with an M-16 and a pack in the Central Highlands or Khe Sanh.
I had several other acquaintances who got into trouble at 17 or 18. This was 1967 and 68. They were told by the judge "it's prison or the USMC. your choice." At least one of them was killed in Vietnam. Others re-upped and became lifers. I suppose that could be considered some sort of conscription, or the drafting of felons as another post suggested.
Going to have to disagree with you on that, the draft has been used since peace time to fill spots in ALL the services, (I do know the USMC tried to get exempt from it in Korea and Vietnam though) whoever was hurting the most is how they parceled them out. That is a fact, the Army is not the only branch that used the draft, I am not sure where you are getting your info from but for starters there are a couple of places you can visit on the net. The Army was usually the largest taker of draftees due to being the one with the most need though. The USMC has always fought against the draft but I doubt they could pull it off if a draft was started up again. Lastly, the Selective Service System has been set up for ALL the branches, they will be filled on a who has the most need basis, again, who is short is who will get the numbers. That is the way is has been set up since 1980. The posts never implied it was just about the Army. I know when I say Military I am talking about all services not just the Army. Perhaps we both made assumptions.
As for the Snarky comment, sorry, but when some of the posters, yourself included, make statements that come off as all knowing or are from pure emotion then it is provoking. Mutual respect goes both ways. Fair enough though and there is not such thing as to much coffee, that is just medical science that say that, what do they know!? ;)
The AD side does help, many posters obviously do not have much real interaction with the military and even fewer have actually seen combat, hence have very little understanding of what actually goes on, how it works,the reality of operations, etc... Some it would seem even think that watching the Military Channel or reading a few books gives them insight, it does not. I also think some people tend to forget that the military is not like any other group we have in the States. I have read the posts and many seem to think it is just like any other Federal Institution when it is far from it and by just making social changes for the sake of making change has dire consequences.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(75)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE