10
Nov
2006

An interesting conversation on the possibility of a military draft

A few days ago I wrote about my sense that a military draft will be instituted before the end of president Bush’s term in office. The piece generated some interesting comment which I think is worth reading. The gist of my case is that the increasing strain on the military imposed by Iraq is nearing the point at which it has to be addressed by either removing the source of the strain — extricating ourselves from Iraq without perpetrating some further disaster — or adding considerably more manpower more quickly than the recruiting climate will permit.

Following is the final comment in a series of interesting ones from Tony, a National Guard officer, and my response to it. For more context, you can read the original piece here, and the exchange between Tony and I beginning in the comments section here.

Tony initially took my thesis as an assault on the character and enthusiasm of troops deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. Although any large population of heavily armed people in combat will include some you’d rather not spend time around and some whose failings make life appreciably more difficult for their fellows and their country, I’m concerned about mechanics that are for the most part outside the control of the troops.

Here’s Tony’s last comment and my response to it.

Upping the recruiting age has been on the table for years. It never made sense to exclude perfectly healthy people with real world experience and common sense from joining the service. When I joined in the early 1990s, officer candidates could obtain age waivers up to age 40. Enlisted could sign up without waivers up to age 35. The increase in enlistment age simply brought the enlisted ranks into line with the officer ranks. Is recruiting more difficult in wartime? Of course it is. But I have to disagree with you that waivers are leading to a crisis in the services. You point to the increase in criminal history waivers. We have always offered waivers in the Army and the Navy but it never made the news. The waivers have always been and still are for minor misdemeanors. If you have a felony, you are not eligible. The Marine Corps does not accept recruits who have a criminal history. The Air Force is offering airmen case incentives to leave the service. You are correct that bonuses have increased. As I said, ecruiting is always more challenging in wartime. We need a larger military. Conscription is not the answer. Conscripts are less effective than professional soldiers. There are exceptions to the rule of course, but the general rule is that conscripts get themselves killed faster in war. It’s a combination of lack of experience and lack of motivation. Maybe one answer is to pull our troops out of Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Sinai. We have been wasting our time there since the 1990s.

Anyway, the premise of your article seems to be:
1. that because the troops are being used in the manner for which troops are intended, those troops will leave the military and we will need a draft.

2. That because nobody will join the military because of the OPTEMPO, we will need a draft.

3. National Guard and Reserve troops will not stay in the service because they feel that they did not sign up in order to be called to active duty.

I say in response, that my own experience, not simply what I see in the media, tells me that none of the above is true. Recruiting is and always will be a challenge. However, retention and reenlistment is at an all time high because the soldiers feel a sense of purpose and responsibility. Soldiers tend to take the Army Value of “selfless service” seriously. Those who are now joining the National Guard and reserves do so knowing that they will be deployed. Those who are in the Guard and reserves are reenlisting at high rates. Those who are leaving are, by a vast majority, are holdovers from the Vietnam era who joined to avoid the draft. We all prefer to see them go anyway. I know that there is a group out there hoping for a draft so that a public uproar and campus riots and protests will return. These are the 1960s holdovers and wannabees. I’m not saying that you are one of them, but when the military says no to a draft and the left seems to be hoping for one it raises a red flag. Again, I’m not lumping you into that group but you seem to accept their arguments.

My response:

Here’s the key:

Is recruiting more difficult in wartime? Of course it is

That’s a good part of my point, and all the trends I’ve mentioned are evidence of that. They’re not precipitating a crisis, they’re symptoms of one that already exists.

It’s not that the waivers are new: it’s that they’re increasing. It’s not that the enlistment age hasn’t been raised before: it’s that it’s been raised three times in the past four years. It’s not that stop-loss orders are new: it’s that there are more of them affecting more people. In the past, the trend on aptitude tests was to raise the qualifying score; now, it’s going in the other direction.

It’s not that soldiers are unwilling to adapt to the faster rotations: it’s that they have to. The Pentagon makes no secret of the fact that training and readiness are hurt by the pace and by having to send training units overseas instead of keeping them here to train and retrain; combat readiness ratings are way down for undeployed Army brigades because equipment isn’t keeping pace with the rotations, and the reason that the baseline for rotations is two years home for one year deployed is that that’s what the Army thinks is required to keep troops adequately trained, equipped and rested.

The problem isn’t that the vast majority of service members aren’t willing to do what’s required of them. It’s that Iraq has erased the margins, the Army is running on fumes and every problem has a cascading effect.

Before Iraq it didn’t matter so much if retention rates fell short by a few points because the shortfall could be made up over a few years while a few reserves filled the holes; now it’s critical. If retention is off you have to call up more reserves or plug in the Guard or both, so you have to recruit more reserves, more Guard and more soldiers, the latter of whom require more training than retained ones and the other two sources, which makes the equipment problem and the deployment of training brigades yet more critical.

I think we’re agreed that more bodies are needed to maintain the current pace of deployments. We seem to be agreed that recruiting has become more difficult. I assume that means we’re agreed that if circumstances become more dire, we’ll need more bodies in a hurry. Where do we get them?

I know we’re agreed that the prospect of a draft is extremely unpopular among the general public and even more so among the military. I remember a few years ago that an outgoing general, John Keane, who I think served as Eric Shinseki’s deputy, said in an interview that adding more than 50,000 troops would necessitate at least considering a draft, and that was before Iraq went south. Could we recruit an additional 50,000 in a hurry now? That would require more than a 50% increase in recruiting. People more knowledgeable than I say an additional 40,000 active-duty troops are required, not 50,000, but that’s still a 50% increase in some combination of recruiting and retention and reserve mobilizations. Can we do that quickly enough? (Never mind the question of whether the Army can absorb that many new recruits or train and equip them adequately quickly enough, or whether that number is sufficient to salvage whatever it is we’re trying to do in Iraq.)

My concerns are that

1) I don’t think the Bush administration, or more explicitly Bush, are willing to do anything to ease the strain over the next two years, whether that involves some sort of withdrawal from Iraq or substantially increasing the Army’s strength. I may be wrong, in which case the draft is probably off the table unless the second concern materializes, which is that

2) The Bush administration will do something else extremely stupid and precipitate an immediate crisis rather than the comparatively slow motion one we’re in now.

One of the things that annoys me about Democrats in general is that they’ve not been really frank about the difficulties inherent in pulling out of Iraq. It’s not like Vietnam, which we could have left at almost any time without much changing the outcome there.

I understand why that’s so. Condensing the problems and potential solutions, such as they are, into a soundbite is impossible and any degree of specificity leaves them open to political attack. Now that the elections are over we’ll see if that changes in some substantive way. Probably they’ll just wait to see what James Baker has to say. And ultimately it may not matter because the only real control Congress has over foreign policy is whether or not to fund it, which is a political minefield.

But as I see it, our choices are to dramatically increase the size of the ground services and essentially reinvade the place and hope it works out better the second time, which would certainly require a draft, or to get out a bit at a time in conjunction with some serious, dedicated, difficult regional diplomacy which would require talking with and making substantial concessions to people Bush in particular despises. That’s hard and delicate work; he’s not an especially hard-working or delicate guy and there haven’t been a lot of diplomatic triumphs on the state department side of the river either. And it doesn’t address the question of what to do in the meantime, and it doesn’t assure that the place won’t blow up and take the region with it anyway.

You could lump me in with the draft-as-schadenfreude crowd — which as far as I know is pretty small — if I thought that the mere prospect of instituting one would materially diminish our military adventurism over the next couple of years or otherwise advance my political agenda.

But that’s not the case. I genuinely think we’re going to need one, I think the circumstances will be such that most people will bow to reality however angrily and reluctantly, and I don’t think it’ll do centrist, liberal or leftist politics a damned bit of good at least in the short term – i.e., 2008 – 2012 – because it’s going to be a Democratic Congress that goes along with it. In the longer term it might have some salutary impact on our approach to foreign policy and the role of the military in it. I’m not all that optimistic, although I think the Bush approach won’t survive his administration. Some people whose judgement I respect think the Gates nomination indicates Bush is handing foreign policy off to his dad and Baker, so maybe it won’t even survive the next two years.

Anyway. I’m certainly in a very tiny minority on the issue. I hope I’m wrong, and I hope if it begins to look as though I’m right then our elected leadership will have the time and will to do whatever is necessary (and rational) to stave it off. Mostly I just think we’re in over our heads.

Bookmark and Share
[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Google] [LinkedIn] [StumbleUpon] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email] More »
Powered by Bookmarkify™

This entry was posted on Friday, November 10th, 2006 at 1:51 pm and is filed under Bush Administration, Iraq, Weldon's Page. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

13 Responses to “An interesting conversation on the possibility of a military draft”

  1. 1
    JackD Says:

    Weldon,
    I think you have to acknowledge that the draft is a political non-starter. 2008 is a presidential election year. Do you think either party wants to go into that as the party that reinstituted the draft?
    The Bushies no longer have the leverage to start something else. The country is sick of the Iraq war and its enthusiasm for a new adventure is somewhere between no and are you out of your mind! They don’t have the Congress and they don’t have the people. Ain’t no new wars gonna happen.
    The Baker “Commission” is not about to recommend a draft to shore up the troops and is far more likely to suggest withdrawing to the rather lavish strategic hamlets we have been building and abandoning the cities to their citizenries. We’ll stay, with the force levels sustainable by our current strength and we’ll do it because, as Bush said a couple of weeks ago, it would be foolhardy to leave the mideast oil fields under the control of mid-east despots (Iran) who could shut down the oil supply. But the war was not about oil! Not for one second!

    November 10th, 2006 at 5:31 pm
  2. 2
    Weldon Berger Says:

    I do know it’s a political non-starter. I’m just not convinced it’ll stay that way. I’m also having trouble wrapping my mind around the notion that Bush is preparing to surrender the last two years of his presidency to his dad and Nancy Pelosi. Foreign policy and Iraq are all he has left. I know it’s in pre-911 character, but dang, that’s gotta hurt. One would think, anyway.

    November 10th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
  3. 3
    ekzept Says:

    most people advocating the draft seem to assume draftees are “plug compatible” with volunteer armed forces. they are not. the volunteers are picked more selectively, and they are far better trained. in the past — and for good reason — units of draftees have been avoided by regular army, simply because the draftees are more likely to get you killed, with their lack of training.

    today, given the degree to which the armed forces rely upon high technology to do their thing, there is a view that draftees could be a downright handicap, not a boon. indeed, problems of interoperability with armed forces of other countries happen because of these technology differences.

    then, of course, there’s the Russian experience in Chechnya. there, with militants, insurgents, and IEDs, technology matters for little or nought. instead, they needed bodies. great masses of minimally trained draftees make excellent IED fodder, allowing the more valuable, better trained military to be withdrawn and preserved for roles where their talents matter.

    the difference, of course, is that the American public is likely to get wise on these motives pretty darn fast.

    indeed, one not highly broadcast problem with the war in Iraq is how little the Pentagon and regular army have learned since Vietnam in dealing with situations which are essentially the same. this suggests that what the armed forces specialize in is repeating the same mistakes they’ve made before, at the cost of bodies, and all the while subsidizing the profits of corporations which provide them weapons.

    moreover, for those who argue that somehow a draft will magically make the USA less likely to commit troops except in more serious situations. well, that didn’t seem to be the case in Vietnam. and Vietnam shows the government, when it makes up its mind about something, will NOT listen to public opinion, despite body count, until the public approaches revolutionary fervor.

    no, what the Iraq experience shows is (1) the continuing thirst on many folks part to prolong the mirage of an American empire, (2) that military adventures don’t work any more and sending in troops is an admission that whatever plans or policy we’ve had have failed, despite the machinations used to justify them, and (3) there are plenty of people who make careers out of being mercenaries. remember the first Gulf war was the USA as mercenary: most of our expenses were paid by (an admittedly grateful) Kuwait. *why* should American lives be lost to fight such causes?

    November 10th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
  4. 4
    Weldon Berger Says:

    I’m not advocating a draft, I just think one is likely from necessity, not from any newfound national sense of social virtue.

    November 11th, 2006 at 4:40 am
  5. 5
    Joe Says:

    I appreciate this discussion. Two things come to mind.

    My rough impression is that many reserves are upset that they are going into somewhere they didn’t sign up to go. Surely, if called, they will serve faithfully. But, and the “implicit promise” that they will only be sent out when truly compelled factors in, we are relying too much on people simply not intended for this sort of thing.

    [And, let's be honest here ... at some point being forced will have an effect; also we put limits on the military for a reason ... this is not some sort of slam on the troops; it is simply reality that we have a civilian gov't for a reason.]

    Two, how much support staff basically out of harm’s way (this includes all those not in harm’s way, stateside, in bases around the world etc.) are possibly available but tied down? IOW, can we fill these slots too with possible draftees in some fashion?

    My implication is that the military, esp. during war, often is tied down with loads of support staff that are not “cannon fodder,” and possibly filled to some extent by newbies much easier.

    November 11th, 2006 at 6:25 am
  6. 6
    Mike Says:

    Americans are not going to tolerate a draft anymore. Politicians would be fools to even try to implement one. The era of this county fighting wars of choice with a conscripted army are over with, and yes, Iraq was a war of choice. Most Americans are just not into sacrifice, and we don’t produce big families anymore to use as cannon fodder.

    George Bush is going to have a failed presidency. He is going to be another Lyndon Johnson, doomed by an unpopular war. Iraq is fragmenting, it is atomizing. The Iraq War is lost. My bet is that George Bush and his new defense secretary are going to spend the next two years rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

    November 11th, 2006 at 9:59 am
  7. 7
    Brooke Says:

    I think we need a draft but then again it may not be such a good idea. I mean think of it as, what if they don’t get all the training they need but yet then they have to be recruited. Think of all the men or women who could die, get injured, or something of that sort and end up dieing. There will be alot of families hurt and disappointed this happened. If something like that happened, even more people than now wouldn’t like Bush. I don’t like Bush personally but I’m only 14 and have a little more to learn before I should start judging people. All I’m saying is that I don’t think we need a draft right now, especially since Bush is in office.

    November 11th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
  8. 8
    Weldon Berger Says:

    Hi, Brooke, thanks for stopping by. I think you’ve about summed it up: a draft is a very bad idea until not having a draft is a worse idea. I hope it doesn’t come to that.

    November 11th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
  9. 9
    wubie Says:

    both the Democratic front runner (Hillary) and Republican front runner (McCain) are pro-universal national service. so 2008 could be just like the election of 1940-no choice at all.
    McCain would be the 1st Republican nominee since the infamous Ike to be pro-draft.

    November 12th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
  10. 10
    Peter Jesella Says:

    Hi Weldon Berger:
    For 26 years I have advocated for a voluntary National Youth Service System, with universal registration. This was based on a bill that was in the House of Representatives, four years starting in 1979.

    My particular interest was the creation of a Youth Energy Conservation ( Today Efficiency) Corps. Back then both parties did not like the registration requirement even though it could be an effective wake up call to each new generation. Additionally, the majority but not all, Democrats did not like linking community service with military service, and most Republicans considered community service as a form of socialism rather than participatory democracy.

    This bill by former Congressman Paul N ‘Peter’ McCloskey, Menlo Park, CA, would have required both males and females to register at 17, be encouraged to consider their role as future voting-age citizens, and at 18 indicate any interest in volunteering for active military, reserve duty, community service, say no thanks, or maybe later. Maybe could delay and apply until age 23 to gain more maturity, additional education, or more consideration. I would be also glad to include a hell no.

    What was interesting was he did a survey of Juniors and Seniors in his Congressional district. The yin and yang of it was that 90% of the youth hated the idea, but 90% of the youth said they would participate in something. With a geneder split males 60% military 30% community and females 30% military and 60% community service.

    Back in Nov 2002 I contact 200 White House staff on the history of this idea, and my proposal in 1980 for a Youth Energy Conservation Corps, community based, but nation wide as an alternative to a future U.S. war in the Persian Gulf. Got a few acknowledgments of consideration, more thank you notes, but that was less than 2%.

    In 2003 I gave this info to five of the Democratic Presidential candidates, and in 04 took my message to the Democratic Convention as a Kerry delegate.

    For the most part I have gotten silence from the encounters I have had with the media, politicians, government officials, generals from the Pentagon, policy experts, and academic professors.

    Find this lack of dialogue rather depressing. I have flipped this idea back to the role of the individual by calling it a Participatory Citizenship Internet Network of Service. An excellent book on current trends across the planet in community service programs is titled: “Service without Guns” By Donald J. Eberly and Reuven Gal, Published in 2006 on the Internet at http://www.LuLu.com .

    Take care, Peter Jesella more at http://www.myspace.com/peterview

    November 13th, 2006 at 12:01 am
  11. 11
    mike gilgal Says:

    My Rabbi Rav Nachman Kahane and bro of Rav Meir Kahane has been saying for several years now even before the World Trade Center that America would have a draft so tha that the yeshiva students would flee America for Israel.

    The very fact that soldiers are being accepted at 42 years of age regardless of officer or soldier status, not only jeopardizes the lives of the individual soldiers but the unit as well since they will take care of the old timers at teh expense of the mission. And then whenthe army allows persons with psychiatric problems in as well problems can be the only result.

    November 16th, 2006 at 2:05 am
  12. 12
    Ralou Says:

    1. Regarding Universal Service based on skills: A skills draft will disproportionately select the poor for military service because the poor are the ones who have the skills needed in combat (with the exception of some medical personnel, who also have needed skills). Truck drivers, cooks, computer programmers, data entry geeks, etc. rarely come from the champagne set.

    2. A draft of irate Americans who don’t want to be in Iraq will hurt, not help, the US military. The motivation to break-burn-drop-wreck and otherwise sabotage everything in reach would be strong among today’s draftees. It would be especially foolish to conscript older Americans, who are even less likely to jump while asking how high on the way up. Just because a person has the skills, does not mean he/she can be motivated to use them.

    3. Where are they finding those three in ten people who reportedly support a draft? I don’t believe nearly that many Americans are willing to condemn themselves or their children to conscription.

    November 19th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
  13. 13
    Weldon Berger Says:

    Ralou, I haven’t seen any recent surveys on the acceptability of a draft. I’d be surprised if the figure was that high too.

    I think the idea of mandatory national service has merit at certain times in certain places, but I’m fairly certain this isn’t one of those times for this place.

    I don’t think anything will do the military in Iraq much good other than leaving, but we’re not leaving. I’m not advocating a draft, skills-based or otherwise; I just think we’re headed toward a point where it will be seen as the least bad short-term option.

    November 19th, 2006 at 5:56 pm

Leave a Reply

BTC News: If It Says ‘News,’ It Must Be True is is proudly powered by Wordpress
Navigation Theme by GPS Gazette