It doesn't have to be this way. Military service is a good thing and should be honored. However, I think you're both missing the fact that the modern American military neither has, needs, or even wants large numbers of people in uniform.
If you doubt that, let me add that I spent part of Friday afternoon interviewing the four-star general who heads Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) about current trends in military service. I deal with one and two-star generals on a regular basis, and had an extended interview some time ago with the three-star general who at that time was in charge of Army recruitment.
In other words, when I say I'm getting this “from the horse's mouth,” I might just know what I'm talking about. Nothing I'm saying is anything other than the standard view from the Pentagon for at least a decade, and actually closer to three decades. You don't need to take it from me; this is not some sort of insider view, and you would hear most of what I'm saying coming from the majority of senior officers who have given much thought to alternatives to the current all-volunteer force.
The leaders of the modern Army recognized a full generation ago that the vast majority of Americans don't want to serve in uniform, and a substantial part of those who might want to serve aren't qualified for a wide variety of reasons. Rather than focusing on having a large mass of people wearing the uniform, the Army and Navy followed the model that both the Air Force and Marine Corps had begun using far earlier, namely, trying to recruit a smaller force of people with specialized skill sets that the military needs, and then providing them with high-tech weapons and training so one squad or one company can do the work that in World War I and World War II required hundreds or maybe thousands of people. The current combat operations are not called the “captains’ war” for nothing.
This simply is a reflection in our uniformed personnel of changes in our civilian workforce. How many people do we need on an assembly line today? One person, thanks to technology, can do the work that a generation ago took many more people. That applies to the military just as much as any other field which requires technical expertise and use of sophisticated equipment.
We now have a highly trained and professional force which is capable of doing much more than a draftee Army of people who in too many cases don't want to be there and got out as quickly as they could. Obviously, we still have numerous young men (and yes, some young women) who decide to join the Army for a few years to give them personal discipline, to see the world, to pay for college, or whatever other reason, but who definitely know that in the modern military, there is a very good probability they'll see time in Iraq, Afghanistan, or wherever some new problem blows up next.
The nice thing is that while many of those people never intended to make the military a career and only intended to volunteer for a few years, once they join, quite a few decide they like it and end up spending 20 years or more in uniform, either active duty or in the National Guard or the Reserves, and not uncommonly then decide to hang up their uniform and start doing similar work for the Department of Defense as a GS civilian or as a contractor. It's a good system — take people who are experienced but have reached an age or a medical condition where they might not be the best for combat operations, and put them in garrison environments as civilians doing work that frees someone else to go to the fight.
Our modern military is not a cross-section of society; maybe some think it should be, but it just isn't. It is heavily composed of people from small towns or rural areas, is disproportionately Southern, and has many people whose fathers or other relatives were in the military before them and modeled military service.
In other words, we have a professional military of people who want to be there and are assuming a burden that most Americans cannot or do not want to perform.
We can debate whether the military should be a cross-section of America, or whether most able-bodied men should serve. The fact is that is not going to happen without massive changes in our society, and the Pentagon doesn't even want that. There are enough generals who remember what it was like to be a young officer or young sergeant during the Vietnam and post-Vietnam eras, or whose fathers were serving during that era, to be very sure they don't want that kind of military ever again.
I said that patriotic, conservative men should try to enlist in the military, how can you find fault with that, regardless of the pool of manpower that you think we need.
The fact that we are accepting females, and moms in huge numbers as we shoot for 50% and even grandmothers, is evidence that we could improve our enlistment quality and that we are short of quality enlistment material.
Even that has little to do with my point, patriotic, conservative men, should try to enlist to serve their nation.
Interesting, informative post. Thanks.