RD...where are you? I need someone to distract me from writing tedious OPORDS that no one reads.

Tom you must be reading Rubber Ducky’s and my mail. All these ideas are first rate and will be generally hated by the military. A new 21st Century version of the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) would be an outstanding opportunity for Americans from all classes and ethnicities to work together doing service in their communities. Conservation work, infrastructure projects, health care assistance, mentoring young children in reading and math there are no end of opportunities.

The active armed forces should be the professional core with exactly as you say an option for 30-year careers. A new 18 month National Service Act would assign young people who choose military service into a newly constituted National Guard. At the conclusion of NG service people with successful records could volunteer for the active forces. All potential officers should be required to have successfully completed basic military training with the NG prior to attending college.

It will never happen.

Lots of weighty ideas for a Friday. I’m sure Tom has read “The Nightingale’s song” by Robert Timburg. It’s a biography of a handful of Naval Academy grads and Vietnam vets in the Reagan era (McCain, Webb, North,ect). He had some interesting commentary about the elites abandoning the country in the Vietnam era and, if memory serves, he had interesting stats about how many Harvard grad died in World War II and Vietnam compared to West Point grads. I mention this to suggest that the process began before Reagan and the All Volunteer Force.

Tom’s draft idea will certainly ruffle some feathers. It’s obviously a political non-starter. I don’t see too many people signing on to such a broad scale social engineering project, especially as Iraq and Afghanistan are on the downslope. The gov'ment is big enough and the rent is too darn high.

Returning to reality, I’d go the other way with military retirement and lower the retirement age and abolish this “all or nothing” nonsense as it encourages ugly careerism in field grades. The Brits offer pensions after 15 years, but it isn’t enough to actually retire on. I’d also make it easier to go into the GS system, remain in the reserves and, perish the thought, return to the active force. I recall hearing ideas about more on ramps and off ramps for officers in a paper put out last year on officer development by The Little Think Tank That Could (CNAS).

The civil service idea is great. I’d include the Peace Corps/ USAID jobs for the more adventurous. We could use more foreign language speakers in our workforce, if we want to compete globally. The public school system could certainly use a bigger Teach For America.

The libertarian opt out could have been lifted from Starship Troopers. Are you going to take away their right to vote as well? “Service means Citizenship!”

Love the Libertarian Opt-out idea. It would be interesting to see how many choose it and later realize they made a mistake.

But there are larger issues at stake here. How do we get the elites to understand that what happens to the little people is vitally important to the elites future? Connected with that thought, most of the little people oppose higher taxes on the elites because they are under the delusion that with hard work and intelligence they could someday join those ratified ranks. What happens when the little people begin to understand that the laws and rules in place are hopelessly stacked against them, and social mobility on any meaningful scale is a myth?

National service for HS grads assumes jobs for them that they can readily be trained into. Because of the emotional immaturity and raging hormone imbalance associated with that age-group, they make louse cops, uncertain caregivers etc., and tend to take risks and get hurt in demanding physical occupations.

A more rational scheme is to protect them as best we're able in an enhanced educational context, and take the service repayment from families that are unable to pay cash for university in their mid twenties.

The larger problem is what our young people are going to do after service, for jobs.

Or you can leave it like it is, and have government do it's job of monitoring and regulating private industry during wartime? Because as it stands now, the force that has replaced the dreaded draft, is private contractors. Close to a quarter million of us contractors actually. We are the ones that have allowed the war to be fought so long, and under two different administrations, and two different political parties. Does anyone here not acknowledge the significance of that?

Also, this contractor force does not have a problem with recruitment, and it has the ability to respond to the immediate needs of today's war planners in a very rapid manner. We can actually put boots on the ground faster than what it takes to get a government COR on the ground to monitor the work.

As for legal accountability of this contractor force? Easy. Sign on contractors under a letter of marque, issued directly by congress. That means every contractor on the battlefield, regardless of where they are from, would operate under the flag of the US via a LoM. That's if they want to work for the US during times of war. It is how we established a relationship with private industry (privateers) during the Revolutionary War and War of 1812, and it would be a way to license today's war time civilian work force. Because the legal accountability right now sucks, because there really is none.

Nine plus years of warfare, and the government still hasn't figured out that it has within it's power in the constitution to grant a license to companies during times of war. A license that can spell out exactly what legal mechanisms are needed to hold it accountable.

Under the LoM, congress can actually dictate the exact legal framework that a company is to operate under. They can also back up the LoM with a bond, which is how it was done with the early privateers. Why we do not license and bond companies today is beyond me? It's as if congress and today's military planners want a legally screwed up system of accountability for this civilian work force.

Or there might be another reason for this neglect. And that is today's military and supporters in congress, are probably feeling a little bit competition here and really don't want private industry to threaten their good deal. This was the exact reaction of the Continental Navy in regards to privateers at the time. I guess it would be the same reaction the Post Office would have towards Fedex or UPS, or TSA's reaction if airports decided to use private industry.

Because after all, a government managed military is the only ones capable of fighting wars, and private industry is incapable of such things? (sarcasm) Don't tell that to the early American privateers or to Executive Outcomes--both examples of private industry doing just fine in the realm of war fighting. The only reason we are not fighting wars, is because government has sold the people on the idea that a government sponsored military is the only appropriate means of fighting wars. That Max Webber's monopoly on the use of force is a concept without question, and Machiavelli 'Prince' love affair is wrong about private industry during war time.

I beg to differ, and today's United States, that has fought a nine plus year marathon war using volunteer military and contractors beg's to differ as well. Because obviously this quarter million army of contractors has yet to turn it's focus on overthrowing the US government or fighting the military it has been serving. If anything, this contractor force has been thrown under the bus many times by the master it serves and still continues to do what it is doing.

Then of course there is the matter of choice. In my industry, choice is king. With a draft, you are forcing people against their will to fight. Then of course those folks and their friends and family will protest the matter, much like they did in Vietnam, and you will have a work force that will do all they can to sabotage your war effort. Or they just won't be that into killing the enemy and care more about just surviving. Boy, that sounds effective. lol

Of course we can hope and pray that wars like WW 2 will come along, and give plenty of folks the motivation necessary to join or willingly be drafted. But unfortunately, I don't think we have that luxury of getting to choose 'cool wars' that every one wants to fight in. Or wars that are perfectly timed after a great depression. Not to mention, what about wars during times of economic prosperity? Who wants to fight the good war, when they can live the good life back home?

Nope, I say what we have right now works because it all involves that magic word 'choice'. If Americans do not want to participate, then they will pay the price in another way, and that is through taxes. Because with an all volunteer military and a private industry willing and able to support that all volunteer military, comes a price. Those willing to fight and die deserve every last dime required to keep them 'volunteering' or 'contracting'. Those not willing to participate, can stay home like they are now, and when they actually get to a point where they are sick of paying high taxes, they might actually get off their ass and protest the war or vote someone into congress that wants us out of the war.

Another point that irks me about today's wars. Congress should be the ones declaring war, and not the President. Because then they will be the ones voted out of their position of power by the people, if in fact that war was not justified. The founding fathers specifically set up the constitution so that this was how business was to be done. As it stands now, everyone can point blame at the president (or nothing), because the folks that should be taking that responsibility are passing the buck. Or funnier yet, they put the blame on the UN or something stupid like that.

Funny how congress is passing the buck on legally controlling private industry during times of war, by not granting letters of marque, and by allowing the various departments of government to just do whatever with private industry. And then congress gets mad at them for how they do just that. lol Do your job, set up the committee, and start licensing companies like this country used to do during times of war in our beginnings. Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11 gives congress both war powers and the granting of the LoM--so do your job and use it I say.

That is my thoughts on the matter, and the draft is a horrible idea.

So Mr, Ricks the great liberal of the District of Corruption media elite wants to force people to labor for the government. Not only are his dumb ideas unconstitutional, but are completely imoral. Outside of direct slavery, so called "national service" (Orwellian term for forced labor) is a conspiracy against personal liberty. The US government would make this program into a GULAG to the benefit of private enterprise. Government is the most corrupt and evil institution in the world. Forcing our children into forced labor at the hands of government slave drivers is insane at the least. It is as horrible as forcing people to carry a gun and murder their fellow man.

Mr. Ricks wants to enact the horrible evil of forced labor on the youth of the USA. He is no doubt running an Info Op for his masters in the government. The plan is to deal with the chronic unemployment sitiation in the US that is not going away. What a better way to deal with unemployed youth! Enslave them in forced labor units. This thing has NORTHCOM written all over it. Mr. Ricks dresses up his slavery proposal in lots of nice belt way cliches, but the bottom line is forced labor. Holding back government money to those who don´t want to play is pure extortion.

Mr. Ricks is revealing that he is an authoritarian that will deprive people of there liberty in order to fullfill some ideological fixation he has against the socalled rich. Yes, in the world of Mr. Ricks, slavery is freedom. The pathology of power is all consuming especially amoungst budding commisars!

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

First, I agree with the problem, but I don't think that this will work.

Whenever Charlie Rangel or anyone else brings up the idea of a draft or compulsory service, I roll my eyes because it is completely impractical. When the draft ended, it was still possible for NCO's to take recalcitrant members "behind the barracks," "behind the boiler," or somewhere else and administer a pretty good whuppin'. It was quick, it was easy, there was no paperwork involved, and so long as the NCO didn't go too far (i.e., death or permanent injuries) there was no fear of retribution.

I'm not advocating this - I know it could be unfair and was ripe for abuse by bullies and sadists. However, it was a very effective way of keeping a large group of people who didn't want to be there in line and doing what they should be doing.

The other option, since everyone is technically a volunteer,would be to throw people out who aren't doing well. However, if you make this too easy (without true due process), it would also be too easy for petty tyrants to threaten good workers with dismissal if they didn't meet their whims. With true due process, it becomes the long process of documenting, counseling, etc., similar to trying to get rid of a GS employee, and would require too much time of management to make it worth their while to try to dismiss a problem child.

It's very easy to say this won't happen, but without an effective method to deal with these people, the process will never work.

Tom's right. Where we could have, should have been immediately after 9/11. No, I will not bore you with all the "what if's."

But still, imagination, imagination, leverage, leverage the 'Net, the 'Net--as universe, world, self.

Because, as we and the world slept our recent histories, Wilikileakers quietly and stealthily altered, forever, the Art of War.

Hopefully now, those who will can be those who can--Peace.

Not serving the federal government is now equated to abandoning America. The assumption of the liberal is that the people belong to the state and the state should demand compensation for their permitted existence.

I think these are great ideas.

Add this one - if you're an illegal immigrant and want to stay - serve 18 months.

Check this out:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20101119/ts_yblog_theticket/millionaires-to-obama-tax-us

This proposal couldn't accurately be called "compulsory service," because there is an opt out. You are not compelled to participate. But you are rewarded for doing so.

So maybe call it, "rewarded service."

Best,
Tom

I won't comment on the feasibility of Mr. Ricks' proposal. I think he knows where it goes in practice, as well as the fact that the real value is in the discussion. Instead, what I want to approach is the evolving dynamic that's causing the problem. We have a lot of rich people in this country commanding the economy. We have several hundred-fold more lower middle class and outright poor people shouldering the ruck sacks. Mr. Ricks views this as a problem that emerged in the early 1980's and has been exacerbated by our first 21st Century war. I'm not so sure.

First, if you read Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers," or either of Daniel Yergin's works on the politics and power plays of oil and economics, then all illusions that Eisenhower's "military industrial complex" came about in the 1940's fall away. To see how far back the trend goes, and just how inextricably linked the captains of industry are to the generals and the admirals of the armed forces, take a real hard look at the history of the East India Company. Before things really fell apart in India and then the American colonies, the relationship was so cozy that you couldn't tell where the Royal Navy, the Parliament, and the Board of Directors ended and began. No one had a problem with it so long as France was checked and the money kept rolling in. Of course, once that changed the system was thrown asunder. It's important to note that the same people who dismantled it were also the ones who tolerated its rise-- the common voters. Kennedy repeats this theme over and again throughout his book, inculcating the reader with an important point-- you can only have as much yard as you can keep trespassers off, and dogs and shotgun shells aren't cheap.

Britain didn't (because it couldn't) abandon that marriage quite so fast, and the ties between the economic elite, government and the military endured throughout the colonial battles for Africa and into WWI. There's a cultural perception that the barons of finance felt a strong sense of patriotism throughout, and every business venture outside the country was as much for Queen and Country as it was for coinage. I'm not sure how valid it is, but it seems to have solid foundations. The point is that there's an existing model for a country to elevate a financial elite without tearing itself apart.

So where am I going with this? Well, there's a funny joke I made up.

What's the difference between a major American metropolitan area where the trains run on time and everyone obeys stop signs and a city like Baghdad where no one takes your street gang seriously until you're packing 30mm cannons and RPGs?

Give up? Eighteen inches of water. Don't believe me? Google "New Orleans Katrina." I strongly recommend ProPublica's reporting on it. What you have is a great example of just how quickly Detroit, Atlanta or St. Louis could become a problem demanding more combat power than the 82nd Airborne has (a few battalions of which were deployed to N'awlins, by the way). Gangs and their territories quickly turned into tribes with de facto provinces. Police captains became warlords. And what did the rich do? Well, Nicholas Cage hired Blackwater. Other gated communities capitalized the "out" in outsource and went with Israeli mercenaries.

So much for Harry Connick going out to be with "his people."

Walk over to California, where the unemployment rate is sky-high, the economy is so bad that the government is laying off police (and others are quitting because salary cuts won't keep pace with the cost of living), and there is a constant influx of some of the worst soldiers from the worst South American gangs, and you've got all the right conditions for a major problem. The murder rate in LA is astronomical already, and the rest of the crimes on the felony list are doing big business, too. Tell me, if the San Andreas decides to flex like Arnold's pecs tomorrow, what's standing between Compton and the 90210?

Nothin', man.

The rich have tall iron gates, ivy covered walls and nominal ability to acquire some professional gun bunnies. If Brangelina has a problem, if no one else can help, and if they can find them, then maybe they can hire the A-Team. Then again, maybe the A-Team does the mission planning and the cost-benefit analysis and turns down the job.

Meanwhile, the rich need to take a closer look at the people they typically stare at down their noses. Gangs have been ordering their members to military service for at least a decade now. It's become enough of a problem that the FBI and military special investigative forces have task forces assigned to it. But let that soak in-- there are gangs out there with enforcers so dedicated that they'll go to Afghanistan. It's good training. Pause and reflect. What the eff are they planning on doing that Afghanistan is considered good training?

Here's your tactically proficient thug of the 21st Century. Clooney's going to need more mercenaries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gqShQTSDCM

I'm not even going to get into Hutaree and the other militias, but the FBI has the numbers on that as well. Paramilitary organizations throughout the country are growing in size and number. It's been exponential in the last decade. One can only assume their proficiency is increasing as at least a few of their new members are vets.

Tying it all up, here's Harry Truman talking about WWI vets, several years before the start of WWII:

"War heroes are no longer that. They are now looked upon as a sort of nuisance and are considered fools to have gone."

We've got this sentiment running through the armed forces today. The stronger it becomes, and the greater the divide between the haves in D&G and the have-nots in ACUs, the less significant an event will be required to spark conflicts. Once that happens, all it will take are a few local militia victories to reach critical mass. Let's face it, you only drive the speed limit because you're afraid of being caught. When it's just you, 200 miles of Nebraska highway, and not a cop in sight, you gun it. So will the malcontents, except in a more literal fashion.

As a more exclusive and disconnected elite emerges in America, so too does a more inclusive and disaffected population. The only thing they're lacking is organization and leadership. But here's my greatest fear on this point-- as the middle class begins to shrink and veterans feel increasingly marginalized, what's to keep higher-ranking NCOs and even junior officers from mixing in with the wrong crowd? And what happens when they do?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eau3RoxGN8E&feature=related

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. At any rate, I don't think it will take very long before a group of guys watch 'HEAT' enough times and figure out that knocking over 7-11's is bush league stuff. With enough firepower smuggled back from the combat zone (and you know they did), you can knock over a mansion and get at least $20,000 worth of stuff in no time. An entrepreneur who's smart (and cynical) enough will start by looking for the houses featured on MTV's "My Sweet 16." To paraphrase Jack Handy, "I envision a large expensive house full of people who don't know what war or Afghanistan or Force Recon are, and then I envision me and my homeboys crashing into that house as the shape charges blow the front door off the hinges... because they'd never see it coming."

And they won't.

Ok, let's assume for a minute that this fantasy world is actually possible politically. What would it take?

Well, we currently graduate about 4 million High School students every year. Let's be generous and assume this service doesn't apply to the 1.2 million who don't graduate HS.

With an 18 month commitment, that means we would have to pay, presumably house, and find stuff to do for 6 million unskilled youths annually. Just as a comparison the CCC at it's peak only employed 500k people. We're talking about serious numbers.

Paying them $5 an hour for 40 hours a week (well below minimum wage) is going to cost $62 billion yearly all by itself (6 million X 5 X 40 X 52). What about benefits? It would seem immoral to compel service and deny medical benefits. Then there is housing, food, etc. You also need to add the additional costs of whatever you have them do in addition to their pay and benefits (ie. construction materials, vehicles, transportation, etc.). Add up the costs. It's probably going to be at least a few hundred billion annually.

Secondly, you need to find a lot more work for these people than simply cleaning military bases and being teachers aides. Those tasks will keep a few thousand occupied but not 6 million.

Additionally, you also need answer two questions:

1. What will be the effect of removing HS graduates from the labor pool for 18 months? Who is going to fill summer jobs or work in low-wage retail and fast food and all the other areas that depend on teenage labor?

2. How will whatever you have them do affect business in those areas? If you flood a market (construction, for instance) with cheap indentured labor you risk forcing employers with productive skilled workers out of business.

Finally, I seriously question whether compulsory service is compatible with liberal democracy absent some military necessity. The idea that civic-mindedness can be forced on people by compulsory government service is certainly not a proven concept. In my opinion such extreme measures should be reserved for existential crises and even then should be of limited duration.

...the rich, using their quislings in the Republican Party, have aligned with the Chinese and Germans to maintain the now American nation indentured. Tea will be served through their company store, Walmart, and all information will be managed by the Murdoch family. Defense assets will utilized for the maintenance of internal order while militias will enforce mob mandated rules. COIN is now defense against humanists and anyone who uses the words like ethics, honor or compassion. An amendment will be added to remove the bill of rights except for the exclusive right to bear arms among real Americans as determined by military tribunals. Waterboarding shall be authorized for truth determination, education and motivation. The Navy shall maintain the now island of Guantanamo formerly known of Cuba for the purposes of national recovery

1. The civilian service idea is good, but why should it be the alternative to military service? If the concern is to have the elites get an appreciation for the less privileged, then start a program where that kind of service is compulsory in college. Want a degree? Do x hours of designated service. Want a post-grad? Do y hours of field-specific community service.

2. Why draft? The US isn't engaged in a total war. It's engaged in wars of ego against a threat which on its most dangerous day can't come close to America's self-inflicted carnage on the highways. Further, I doubt a kid who has spent 18 months cutting grass or chauffeuring the brass will jump for the chance at a lifetime in uniform. Finally, the armed forces are a poor place for social experiments in trying to prepare suburban kids for fights in the world's ghettos.

3. I assume that along with the libertarian opt out you can also opt out of paying taxes. If not, then there should be some hard questions asked about what 'the land of the free' really means.

Living as free men in a free society imposes obligations on citizens.

The very weakness of current American society, and indeed industrialized societies worldwide, is exposed - they cannot compel young men to serve the state anymore. Even a highly militarized paranoid state like Israel is experiencing difficulties with conscription.

If a society is not worth fighting for, then it's....not worth fighting for.

Libertarians erroneously assume that unlimited freedom is a good thing. We can see that, as presently evidenced, such liberty merely makes Americans slaves to consumption and "deeply superficial" passions. There is no broader community or identity worth protecting. This is called "freedom."

The future will be interesting.

I'm completely in favor of both national service and a much steeper progressive tax rate with much higher capital gains taxes. A more equal society with a stronger public service ethos would benefit the vast majority of us, while those at the very top will still have so much they probably won't notice the difference.

a term I remember being used by architects and engineers as a basis to maintain order and consistency across the life of very complex software development, operations, sustainment and reinvigoration programs. It was the basic dna that could be found in all its aspects that assured the consistency and reliability of its applications and processes across the domains within it operated and where it interfaced with different or new applications and domains. Otherwise what resulted after millions of dollars investment and a decade of code writing was "spaghetti ware" and babel. The same could occur at a time of upgrade or reinvigoration when the injection of chaos into that which previously had integrity degenerates into large scale chaos. Sort of as blitzkrieg generals like to do going into a society or the pillaging pirates or robber barrens like going out - the ethos of the brigand.

I am afraid that without no real existential challenge since 1989 and the complete failure of any theology or philosophy or ideology to imbue social justice and political equality in the vacuum remaining. Our brigands have reverted back to times of golden calves, lesser gods and indentured servitude for all others.

Our rich with few exceptions have arrived unchallenged at the promise land with the mandate of a greedy god to take all without remorse. Every man for himself cabals find the conceptual integrity of society and public service to be laughable palaver.

So how is the enterprise doing in OEF and OIF? In the market IPO of GM? Sale of public rightways to Caryle? Patronage awards to money donors? All la meme chose without the worry of borders.

How to spend it for the luxury of the few deserving and sustain it for their few heirs...that is where the interest rests.

Ok. This is the most foolish idea I have read in a long time. Seriously. Mix of fascism, socialism, hegelianism, populism, palinism, cheap conservative nationalism, etc. What the hell were you smoking? (I bet it was not pot) You just broke the clichè record for one single post, seriously. It is patetic. I used to read this blog once in a while, I see now I should read again, unless I want a good laugh. Great idea: let´s distroy the current elite on non-patriots by creating a new elite of chovinistic patriots mantained by the state....HA, HA, HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS A COMPLETE CLASSIC!

Tom Holland's "Rubicon" tells how the development of a super-wealthy elite eventually led to the fall of the Roman Republic.

There is a very simple way to deal with this. Income and capital gains above a "reasonable" level need to be subject to very high rates of tax, ninety to ninety-five percent. A threshold about ten times median earnings for these super-taxes leaves plenty of room to incentivise wealth creation while preventing obscene levels of income. A lot of countries would like to do this but fear the exodus of wealthy individuals. The USA is big enough to set a trend on dealing with excessive wealth that others will follow.