The Death Spiral of the Volunteer Army

NY Times ^ | 5/29/05

[leadpenny]

Do I need to lay out my 214 to have an opinion on the draft?

[Just A Nobody]

Thanks - explains a lot.

[datura]

Nah - I'd like to hear dates of service though - along with branch/MOS.

Here's mine: US Army, 11B3(P), 4 Apr 82 - 21 Jan 91

[xsrdx]

The MSM has made military service unappetizing to their viewers

Absolutely - a large part of the problem. Not just the MSM, but popular culture IN GENERAL has denigrated military service.

This, combined with a SECDEF who's unwilling to consider increases in end strength, does not paint a favorable picture for the future of DoD recruiting.

[dpwiener]

As he stood on the mound of ruble in NYC, President Bush should have called on Congress to give him a bill to sign the next day that had in it the provisions for some form of National Service (including authority to draft) from every American.

Instead of trying to institute compulsory servitude in our own country, President Bush instead wisely decided to promote freedom in other countries. Getting rid of foreign tyrannies is turning out to be a much better plan than promoting tyranny here at home (as you would prefer).

[leadpenny]

Why son, you never even served around draftees. Actually you may have. Draftees who were inducted in the 60s and 70s and decided to stay, may have been your superiors by the time you came in. One I know was your superior. General Shalkashvila was drafted along with Elvis in 1958.

Tell me more about serving with draftees.

[leadpenny]

If a war is worth fighting, it is worth drafting for. Was WWII tyranny on our part?

[dk/coro]

Please let me take the contrarian position here:

For a long time I have advocated some form of Universal National Service -- similar to the Israeli mode, except perhaps a bit broader is scope and options.

If we postulate that Sam Huntington is right -- and that we are in a sustained "Clash" -- then we will be investing blood and lucre in the Middle East for a very long time.

Further, I submit that the hackneyed saying: "Better over there, than here" has merit. And, I subscribe to that position.

At any rate, our resources are spread dangerously thin, considering that we are tragically paying the price for global American Imperial hegemony -- by necessary default.

When we factor in those costs, our manpower resources simply are not there.

Over the long term, I submit, we will have no option other than UNS. How we get to that point is the only real question, In my view.

This third rail makes Social Security look like amateur hour. So, carrying the scenario one additional step further:

I suggest that we will have UNS at some point, probably sooner rather than later. What will make it a reality is our collective reaction to an horrific national event; one keyed in all probability to the developing Islamic Confrontation. At that juncture, and only then, will the Nation have the backbone and compunction to address this issue head-on. Hopefully, in a judicious and cooperative way.

Until that time, we will continue to glue the tattered military manpower pool together as best we can, robbing Peter to pay Paul. What would accelerate the discussion is the potential for the Far East to become unraveled. Which brings us to another aspect of the debate: Carrier Force levels. *S*

I wish my fellow Freepers a most meaningful Memorial Day.

[datura]

That's the one thing I don't understand about Rumsfeld. We got so tired of doing more with less that it felt like we needed to anything with nothing. Sometimes months would go by with 100+ hour workweeks - in garrison. Field time was always an experience in sleep deprivation. But just go down the road to the REMFs areas, and it was like civilians in uniform. They had "jobs". Promotions were a lot slower for them, but they didn't work under our conditions, either.

[leadpenny]

What will make it a reality is our collective reaction to an horrific national event . . .

That may be the reason they have not struck again on the scale of 9-11. The mullahs would rather see us stew in our own juices than have us united behind a common purpose.

[xsrdx]

Conscription is not the answer.

A larger military is the answer; a larger military would be in a better postition to absorb periodic problems with recruiting.

The current administration does not support a significantly larger military force, because a larger military would require enormous increases in an already enormous defense budget.

As a nation, we will eventually have to decide how much capital we're willing to expend in the GWOT.

[datura]

My first squad leader and platoon sergeants were draftees that stuck around. My CSMs and many 1SGs were up until I left. I spent many an hour talking to those men. Yes, I served under that General here at Ft Lewis.

I have little use for the O-corps. Then or now. Out of those 9 years, I met less than one handful of good men who I'd follow without question.

Typical answer to my question.

[pepsionice]

The numbers are on the negative side and it is getting harder to recruit. Considering that Iraq will be the number one topic in the 2008 election...we have to complete the mission and start troop withdrawal by that point...or the Republican candidate (Condi of course)...will have a topic that she can't argue well in front of the American people. If we are still in Iraq with the same number of troops...the draft will likely start to become the number one topic of the congress in 2009. We won't be able to avoid it. Public support of the politicans or whoever is president...will be eroded and the stability of calling a draft will come into question.

[datura]

Got something besides that sidestep? If that timeframe was your service as well, then you never served with the all volunteer military - making your point of view rather one sided. (And as outdated as the horse cavalry.)

My dad flew B-17s in the War, my Uncle hunted U-Boats on skis with bazookas in Iceland and Greenland - he was Cavalry BTW, and another Uncle stayed in the Air Corps long enough to fly SR-71s.

[leadpenny]

Hello!!

The All-Volunteer Army ain't volunteering now.

"Conscription is not the answer."

What is?

[LadyDoc]

re National Guard...you are wrong.
I was NG in the 1980's, and back then it was understood that we were part of the Army. The NG tends to have support units, which can be used both for natural disasters/riots and war. SO back in the 1970's, the NG was integrated with the Army...

Back in the 1980's we understood we would be called for national emergencies. This is nothing new. The New Mexico National Guard had expertise in anti aircraft artillary, so was called up in 1941 to supplement the Philippino American army in Manila...so many ended up at Bataan. In the 1960's, many NG units were called up for the Cuban Missle crisis.

However, my unit was also called up for flood support, i.e. to place sandbags and to supply water to local people.

Anyone who moans about calling up NG forgets that the NG was called up for Desert storm one...

And indeed, a 1997 comedy "you're in the Army now" had Pauli Shore and company as water boys (i.e. water supply personnel) called up for a desert war...so even HOllywood was aware that joining the NG might get you called up...

[leadpenny]

What are you talking about? My private mail to you?

[Melas]

I can't believe what passes for news these days. C'mon, is anyone shocked that recruitment is down? Post 911, being the military, actually became a dangerous job again. Of course the peace time, "I need money for college man" recruitment figures are a thing of the past. What amazes me is that anyone is surprised.

[Future Snake Eater]

I got GI Bill benefits in the Guard. Granted, the checks weren't as big as my active duty counterparts, but it was there nonetheless.

The major recruiting carrot for the National Guard has always been that they would NOT be called upon to fill up the ranks of the standing ARMY.

This hasn't really been true since the early 1900s and the Root Reforms. While the Guard units are under direct command of their respective governors, they receive Federal funding and equipment as long as they can be called upon by the President for Federal service.

[datura]

You were close to correct when you mentioned 911. The president should have placed the nation on a war footing immediately. Not on this "nothing to see here, move along, go buy something" sort of pretending that it is business as usual.

Calling in some chips on national pride - like the ChiComs do whenever they need to draw their public's attention away from the CCPs diry tricks - would have kids enlisting. We can't have it both ways. Give the WOT full standing, and the numbers will come up.