Posted on 07/20/2004 4:06:15 AM PDT by Former Military Chick
New York Times July 20, 2004
Don't Dumb Down The Military
By Nathaniel Fick
WASHINGTON — I went to war as a believer in the citizen-soldier. My college study of the classics idealized Greeks who put down their plows for swords, returning to their fields at the end of the war. As a Marine officer in Afghanistan and Iraq, however, I learned that the victors on today's battlefields are long-term, professional soldiers. Thus the increasing calls for reinstating the draft - and the bills now before Congress that would do so - are well intentioned but misguided. Imposing a draft on the military I served in would harm it grievously for years.
I led platoons of volunteers. In Afghanistan, my marines slept each night in holes they hacked from the rocky ground. They carried hundred-pound packs in addition to their fears of minefields and ambushes, their homesickness, loneliness and exhaustion. The most junior did it for $964.80 per month. They didn't complain, and I never wrestled with discipline problems. Each and every marine wanted to be there. If anyone hadn't, he would have been a drain on the platoon and a liability in combat.
In Iraq, I commanded a reconnaissance platoon, the Marines' special operations force. Many of my enlisted marines were college-educated; some had been to graduate school. All had volunteered once for the Marines, again for the infantry, and a third time for recon. They were proud to serve as part of an elite unit. Like most demanding professionals, they were their own harshest critics, intolerant of their peers whose performance fell short.
The dumb grunt is an anachronism. He has been replaced by the strategic corporal. Immense firepower and improved technology have pushed decision-making with national consequences down to individual enlisted men. Modern warfare requires that even the most junior infantryman master a wide array of technical and tactical skills.
Honing these skills to reflex, a prerequisite for survival in combat, takes time - a year of formal training and another year of on-the-job experience were generally needed to transform my young marines into competent warriors. The Marine Corps demands four-year active enlistments because it takes that long to train troops and ensure those training dollars are put to use in the field. One- or two-year terms, the longest that would be likely under conscription, would simply not allow for this comprehensive training.
Some supporters of the draft argue that America's wars are being fought primarily by minorities from poor families who enlisted in the economic equivalent of a Hail Mary pass. They insist that the sacrifices of citizenship be shared by all Americans. The sentiment is correct, but the outrage is misplaced. There is no cannon-fodder underclass in the military. In fact, front-line combat troops are a near-perfect reflection of American male society.
Yes, some minority men and women enlist for lack of other options, but they tend to concentrate in support jobs where they can learn marketable skills like driving trucks or fixing jets, not throwing grenades and setting up interlocking fields of machine gun fire. African-Americans, who comprise nearly 13 percent of the general population, are overrepresented in the military at more than 19 percent - but they account for only 10.6 percent of infantry soldiers, the group that suffers most in combat. Hispanics, who make up 13.3 percent of the American population, are underrepresented at only 11 percent of those in uniform.
The men in my infantry platoons came from virtually every part of the socio-economic spectrum. There were prep-school graduates and first-generation immigrants, blacks and whites, Muslims and Jews, Democrats and Republicans. They were more diverse than my class at Dartmouth, and far more willing to act on their principles.
The second argument most often advanced for a renewed draft is that the military is too small to meet its commitments. Absolutely true. But the armed forces are stretched thin not from a lack of volunteers but because Congress and the Pentagon are not willing to spend the money to expand the force. Each of the services met or exceeded its recruiting goals in 2003, and the numbers have increased across the board so far this year. Even the Army National Guard, often cited as the abused beast of burden in Iraq, has seen re-enlistments soar past its goal, 65 percent, to 141 percent (the figure is greater than 100 because many guardsmen are re-enlisting early).
Expanding the military to meet additional responsibilities is a matter of structural change: if we build it, they will come. And build it we must. Many of my marines are already on their third combat deployment in the global war on terrorism; they will need replacing. Increasing the size of the active-duty military would lighten the burden on every soldier, sailor, airman and marine. Paradoxically, a larger military becomes more sustainable than a smaller one: fewer combat deployments improves service members' quality of life and contributes to higher rates of enlistment and retention. For now, expanding the volunteer force would give us a larger military without the inherent liabilities of conscription.
And while draft supporters insist we have learned the lessons of Vietnam and can create a fair system this time around, even an equitable draft would lower the standards for enlistees. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was chastised for saying Vietnam-era draftees added no value to the armed forces. But his error was semantic; the statement was true of the system, if not of the patriotic and capable individuals who served.
The current volunteer force rejects applicants who score poorly on its entrance aptitude exam, disclose a history of significant drug use or suffer from any of a number of orthopedic or chronic injuries. Face it: any unwilling draftee could easily find a way to fail any of these tests. The military, then, would be left either to abandon its standards and accept all comers, or to remain true to them and allow the draft to become volunteerism by another name. Stripped of its volunteer ideology, but still unable to compel service from dissenters, the military would end up weaker and less representative than the volunteer force - the very opposite of the draft's intended goals.
Renewing the draft would be a blow against the men and women in uniform, a dumbing down of the institution they serve. The United States military exists to win battles, not to test social policy. Enlarging the volunteer force would show our soldiers that Americans recognize their hardship and are willing to pay the bill to help them better protect the nation. My view of the citizen-soldier was altered, but not destroyed, in combat. We cannot all pick up the sword, nor should we be forced to - but we owe our support to those who do.
Nathaniel Fick, a former Marine captain, is writing a memoir of his military training and combat experience.
/sarcasm
I believe it was designed to put the screws to the American people and quickly turn public opinion away from the war in Iraq.
Otherwise, his views almost exactly mirror my experience. Morale in every unit in which I served was reasonably high. On the rare occasion we'd come across a soldier that was "unable to adapt to military life", he was either sent packing, or was at least marginalized to a position where he could do as little harm to the mission as possible.
The author is absolutely correct. Especially in re congress providing more funding.
I very much like the way you and your unit handled those who had difficulties with the military way of life.
The Draft spreds the burden to all citizens not just the
poor and disadvantaged among us. The Defense of Freedom should be born by all Americans. Like it or not it's the fair thing. Politicians and the Elites will think twice about war if thier Kinfolk could be involved. And absoulutly
no deferments like the Nam War.
NAM VET.
I agree the Defense of Freedom should be born by all Americans. I disagree strongly the draft is the way to do this. Police and Fire forces are volunteer enlistment. Ocassionally, corruption wiffles through these two departments. Nonetheless, before the Leftists seized control over PDs/FDs and enforced "quotas" by any legal means, the standards for the two departments was superb (witness especially corruption in NY PDs in past when quotas were enforced to hire minorities with criminal backgrounds - they were shaking down the citizens they were supposed to be protecting).
Bringing back the "draft" will also bring back a host of social ills, which ultimately serves to corrupt, hamper, and hinder our military from "within".
Politicians and the Elites will think twice about war if thier Kinfolk could be involved.
One would think so. And one would hope the kinfolk would be supportive. However, even with a volunteer military, some parents are using their own child's involvement in military, to spout anti-military, anti-American positions. One self-absorbed mother made her way to Iraq to "use" her son in order to promote her own personal politics. Now consider the emotional political theatre some "kinfolk" would perform should there be a draft. Dashle and Biden would be holding hearings for the "troubled" families right and left. And, their soldier child, would be adversely put into a troubled state of mind.
The mandatory draft is a terrible type of "quota" enforced upon this country, IMHO. Once in place, the hue and cry for "color-coded/gender-specified" placements, positions, and promotions will be next. We've seen how it doesn't work well at all at the private levels. Never should it be done in the military.
Welcome to our ambassador from DU!
I believe firmly in the citizen solider. I went to VMI and I served on active duty and later in the reserves. I believe everyone ought to serve, but I don't believe in coercing people to serve. I would much rather see a system where service was voluntary, but a prerequisite to a wide range of benefits, whether it be voting (the Heinlein Starship Troopers approach) or a free education, offices of profit and trust under the government, or what have you. That way, ambitious young men and women would seek to serve rather than to avoid service.
I also agree that the problem with military force structure and troop strength is a Congressional funding issue, not a manpower availability issue. The Clinton administration significantly reduced the size of our forces after Gulf War I.
I agree with his conclusions.
The draft should remain an option for - God forbid - another national emergency on the scale of WWII.
Also, I agree with his conclusion that the reform of the US military must be from the lowest level of leadership, E-4, upward and not from the top down.
The Marine Corps understands this, at least in theory.
The leadership of the Army still believes that if you tinker with the organizational chart - go from three brigades to four - the problem will be solved. The Army cannot understand that the problem is at the squad level or the fire team level, and not at brigade level or even battalion level.
This points out a little-noticed aspect of the harm done by the Dems' "draft" demagoguery. The people already in uniform aren't stupid; they understand the laws of economics even if they can't package them into a neat systematic form. The more the talking heads insist that a draft should be on the table, the more obvious it is that the appropriate solution to future troop-strength problems -- proper pay and benefits -- are not going to arrive on the table. I'm sure that does wonders for troop morale.
If we have something on that scale -- well, last I heard, it only took two guys per silo to turn the keys....
Even a draft would be inherently unfair. Assuming you would draft men and women between the ages 18-26, those serving would be a distinct minority. There are close to 30 million in that cohort. Reinstating the draft is a politically instigated ploy to undermine the war effort and scare college students into voting for Dems and Nader. We must maintain a professional, volunteer force.
I thought you might be interested in reading this article.
You give any pro-draft FReepers a bad name. A Draft should never be used for liberal, social engineering games.
Here is what I don't get:
We could not have won WWII and probably WWI without conscription. We should have a draft if the man (and woman) power is needed for National Security concerns. Period. It should have only two ingredients - Need and Leadership. The last time this country followed that protocol was in WWII when over 10,000,000 men were drafte. Korea may also have qualified. As much as I hate to admit it, FDR rallied the nation to the crisis and the need was fullfilled. LBJ did not. The jury is still out on the WOT.
I enlisted in the early 60s and served for the next 21 years. The Cold War was a War and the Draftees I served with, especially during and after the Berlin Crisis, as a group, did only one thing - they made the Army a better place and they did their job as Americans. I was commanding a BCT Company as the Draft ended and I can tell you this - something was lost when we went to an all-volunteer force.
see..he agrees with ME..regards.
FYI..I was commissioned in USMC in 68..served 4 years..all in Europe...but I remember the horror stories about the Vietnam Corps..the only time the Marines ever took draftees...
I know of what you speak. I was in Danang on my second tour - at Marble Mountain in fact. I saw the corruption of the Corp as well as the Army during those years. But, that sad chapter in American history is not because there was a draft - it's because we had poor leadership starting at the top.
That's a modified cop-out..leadership at the top failed....abysmally..no argument..at the cost of 50,000 American lives..but "fragging" was a phenomenon that began in the Corps...highly motivated 2ndLT's and platoon full of draftees are a deadly mixture..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.