Another Path Toward A Citizen Military? DoD To Offer Mini-Enlistments
	found on DCMilitary.com written by Erik Riker-Coleman, edited by George (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Wed 29 Jan 10:17am
		"While Congressman Charles Rangel wasted oxygen arguing for a pipe dream, Senators Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) and John McCain (R-Arizona) were actually trying to do something about the worrisome gap between America's soldiers and its citizens," Erik Riker-Coleman writes. "Along with the usual raft of pork-barrel items, the senators succeeded in inserting into the FY2003 National Defense Authorization Act a measure they labeled the 'National Call to Service Act,' which, among other measures designed to increase opportunities for Americans to engage in non-military service, breaks significant ground with regard to military recruitment.

	"The NCSA follows the tried-and-true method: make it (comparatively) easy and they will come. What it does, in brief, is to order the armed services to offer short-term enlistments -- as little as 19 months on active duty -- as well as cash incentives and preferential access to a quintupled Americorps after discharge in an effort to induce more enlistments among college students and graduates, groups not typically represented in the enlisted force (the Army and Navy already offered two-year enlistments, but the Air Force and Marine Corps minimum terms of service were four years). 'The department does not need this program to fill the ranks,' said DoD accessions directorate official Bob Clark. 'But we are excited about offering the chance to serve the country to young men and women who ordinarily might not.' Including would-be graduate students, a decision the services may yet live to regret. "Interested? See your local recruiter."

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 32 commentsbest: 0 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  okay, so why do it?   by eidilon       at Wed 29 Jan 1:34pm score of 1.5 astute     Clarks said the department is coming off its most successful recruiting year ever. "The department does not need this program to fill the ranks" Then why do it? Is it just an attempt to get higher quality recruits? They say the Army and Navy already have "mini-enlistments"...how does this new thing differ from that existing practice? Did the previous two-year enlistment program lead to higher rates of enlisting for the kinds of high-quality candidates they mention?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Re: okay, so why do it?   by stankow       at Wed 29 Jan 3:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     Then why do it? Because Congress told us to. You'd be amazed how many quote-brilliant-ideas-endquote originate from Congress. The military culture is (generally) to smile and say, "Wow, what a brilliant idea. Thanks!" Is it just an attempt to get higher quality recruits? Seems like. But that's really more a question for Sens. Bayh and McCain. They say the Army and Navy already have "mini-enlistments"...how does this new thing differ from that existing practice? The primary difference is that Americorps/Peace Corps service will count as IRR commitment. That's really about it. Did the previous two-year enlistment program lead to higher rates of enlisting for the kinds of high-quality candidates they mention? I can only speak anecdotally, but I've seen some pretty good soldiers come on board for these two-year gigs, including one guy who had a PhD from an Ivy League school. He enlisted for two reasons -- student loan repayment and because his doctorate was so esoteric that he knew he'd spend the rest of his life teaching, and he wanted to have some experience that not every other professor had.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: okay, so why do it?   by UnbelieverDjak       at Thu 30 Jan 11:49am score of 1   in reply to comment 7     Wow. What a brilliant idea. Thanks.... damn, some habits are heard to break. Enlistment levels aren't the problem. I believe they're at the highest point since the cold war across all the branches. I know for a fact navy recruiters reached over %101 of their quota for FY '02. Retention also isn't a problem as evinced by my paltry reenlistment bonus. The problem the article seems to be trying to address is the social gap between the military and the civilians. I think they relate fine so long as they're not located close to eachother. It seems to be only the cities that are near the bases that have the "spend your paycheck and get the fuck out" attitude. The military branches have been trying to improve public image since tailhook, if not earlier. It's had some success, but it's an ongoing process that will take more than a couple initiatives to fix. Basically, a lot of the junior enlisted are assholes, and that's the way it's going to be until they find some way to fit personality screening into the ASVAB.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: okay, so why do it?   by jhe       at Thu 30 Jan 10:44am score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 1     Then why do it? There is a concern among some both inside and outside of the military that there is a cultural gap between those who serve or have served in the military and those who have not. I'm guessing that the Senators are looking for ways to bridge this gap without impairing readieness or driving costs through the roof. I'm guessing Rangel also has some thoughts along the same line despite the race- and class-baiting rhetoric. I'm sure a military historian can do more justice to this, but the US was founded at the birth of the modern era of the citizen soldier. Throughout much of history the military has been an elite of long-service troops. During times of crisis conscription has filled in the ranks but had generally been considered a desperation move. The French introduced the levee en masse after the revolution and created a mass army motivated by nationalism rather than an officer with his saber drawn (although I'm sure they still used that as a back-up). Almost every war this country has fought has included a substantial number of short-timer volunteers or conscripts (at least in part because of our long-standing practice of sending everyone home after the shooting was over in the previous war). This changed with the advent of the all-volunteer force. There are valid historical reasons for questioning whether a republic in general and more importantly, this Republic in particular, can retain its character with a standing elite military - especially as the mass of the population has no experience of that military. "Because a person's a person, no matter how small" -- Theodore Geisel   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Mini-enlistment?   by jocave       at Wed 29 Jan 2:12pm score of 1.5 informative     I'd hardly call this a mini-enlistment-- the plan requires an 8-year obligation: 4-months of training 15-months of active duty obligation 24-months of selected reserve duty obligation The remainder of the 8-year obligation can be served in the selected reserves or individual ready reserve (anyone know the difference?). While in the individual ready reserve, they can participate in AmeriCorps or the Peace Corps as part of their obligation. I just don't see many 21 year olds that are prepared to give this sort of commitment that aren't interested in a military career. I could see a 19-month commitment if that was the extent of the obligation (obviously, there would be enticements to convince folks to stay beyond that as active-duty or reserves), I just don't see the 21-year old college grad, an aspiring professional, looking to commit to anything until he's 30.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Re: Mini-enlistment?   by thinmac       at Wed 29 Jan 3:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     The difference between Selected Reserves and Individual Ready Reserve is how much you drill. Selected Reserves do the 'one weekend a month and two weeks a year', while the Ready Reserve is just available should they be needed, no drilling required. As for 21 year olds who are prepared to give that sort of commitment, but who aren't interested in a military career, I am one. I sighned up for reserve service earlier this month on the day after my 21st birthday. Pretty much the same deal on the 8 year commitment, but without the 19 months active duty to start. I can't really speak for other people my age, but the reason I signed up is that I feel I have a duty to do so. We have a lot of good things that come with being a citizen in this country, and personally I feel you have to hold up your end of making sure it stays that way. The question I have isn't 'is anyone intrested in this commitment?', but rather, 'why aren't more Americans aware of their responsability?' Narrative   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   8.  Re: Mini-enlistment?   by jocave       at Wed 29 Jan 3:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     Thanks for the clarification-- that makes the program much more reasonable. I assumed that the Ready Reserve had the same 'one weekend a month and two weeks a year' commitment. thinmac, thank you for defending the country. In my mind, an 8-year commitment to the reserves is a military career.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Maybe because our government is run by a bunch   by trouscaillon       at Thu 30 Jan 8:52am score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 3     of crypto fascists. I'll accept this responsibility crap when everyone else wakes up and realizes that fighting against corruption and evil in your own government is more important than doing whatever the hell the people in power want you to do. I'll accept the responsibility of fighting for my country when it really is my country and not the play toy of a bunch of goons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: Mini-enlistment?   by Chasuk       at Thu 30 Jan 11:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 3     I served in the military for many years, but not because it was a responsibility. It allowed me to travel to places I never could have afforded, and it was a job when I needed one without any pre-existing skills required. The word responsibility conjures obligation to a totalitarian state, or allegiance, which is something that no citizen of the United States has to the government. It is up to each of us, individually, to choose his or her own moral compass, and if that compass excludes military service, as it does for some, then I am glad that the military in which I served defends that right. I would not have served otherwise. Neopets - the best free game on the Internet.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Hmmm.   by MAYORBOB       at Thu 30 Jan 9:00am score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 14     "I'll accept the responsibility of fighting for my country when it really is my country and not the play toy of a bunch of goons." I wonder how long this nation would have lasted had that been the dominating civic philosophy. You commit to fight for your country, not merely who happens to be at the top of the heap at the moment. Members of the Armed Forces swear an oath to defend the country and the Constitution of the U.S., not any particular person. So, does this mean that you're willing to have everyone sit out a war who disagrees with your type of leader? Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Of course I am.   by trouscaillon       at Thu 30 Jan 9:25am score of 1   in reply to comment 15     This does happen to be a democracy after all, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. If the majority of the people don't think a war is just they shouldn't fight it. Killing people isn't the same as paying your taxes. Most of the requirements and responsibilities that a government places on citizens aren't even a nuisance, and if you disagree with them you can work to fix them. But if you go abroad to fight an unjust war, how are you going to bring those innocent civilians that you might have been forced to gun down back to life? As for our country's attitude, that's what the draft was created for. People didn't want to fight in unjust wars for corrupt politicians, so the government had to force them too. It's not a matter of patriotism, if somebody invaded the US we'd all be on the front lines but Iraq, Cuba, Nicaragua, Panama, etc. are wars of choice not necessity. To suggest that fighting in them was patriotic is bullshit.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: Maybe because our government is run by a bunch   by Atlasshrugged00       at Thu 30 Jan 10:41am score of 1   in reply to comment 14     Boy the entire government. That's a lot of malevolent people. Fortunately with attitudes like yours it never will be your country. You're apparently the type who whines and cries and abdicates responsibility. Bet you don't even vote.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: Of course I am.   by Anywhere       at Thu 30 Jan 12:45pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     As for our country's attitude, that's what the draft was created for. . . It's not a matter of patriotism, if somebody invaded the US we'd all be on the front lines but Iraq, Cuba, Nicaragua, Panama, etc. are wars of choice not necessity. You know, 'cause of the draft that was in place in the late 80s and early 90s when we had conflicts with Iraq and Panama. As far as Cuba goes, I'm not aware-- other than the blockade during the Cuban Missile Crisis-- of our military acting there since the Spanish-American War. Gateway computers are pieces of shit, and their customer service is abysmal. Ask me why if you want to hear me vent.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Of course I am.   by zyxwvutsr       at Thu 30 Jan 12:58pm score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 16     Iraq, Cuba, Nicaragua, Panama, etc. are wars of choice not necessity. To suggest that fighting in them was patriotic is bullshit. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, as are we all. And it is a fact that a great many people hold the opinion that the wars you mentioned were fought out of necessity. Members of the American armed forces are representatives of the will of the people of the United States. As was pointed out above, they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That means doing the bidding of the elected representatives of the People. Which is not such a bad definition of patriotism, is it?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   4.  Individual Ready Reserve   by Gorvernaut       at Wed 29 Jan 3:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     The remainder of the 8-year obligation can be served in the selected reserves or individual ready reserve (anyone know the difference?).   All enlistments require an eight year commitment. The difference is how much active duty and/or selected reserve time the enlistment contract calls for. Generally speaking, any part of that eight years not spent on active duty or in a reserve unit is in the individual ready reserve (IRR). The selected reserves are reserve forces like the National Guard and Air Force Reserve. The reservists still receive pay and allowances and have to attend periodic training drills. The IRR is basically a big list of people who still have a service obligation, but who aren't assigned to a particular unit, don't receive pay or allowances, and don't have to attend drill. Members of the IRR are sometimes called up for active duty during large deployments like Desert Shield/Desert Storm, especially if they haven't been out of active service very long and possess critical (e.g. medical and technical) skills. For the most part, though, they have no more obligation than filling out a questionnaire to update their medical and contact information. Essentially, you're a civilian who might be called up in case of a really big emergency.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: Individual Ready Reserve   by TheMCP       at Thu 30 Jan 12:31am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     All enlistments require an eight year commitment. And that's part of the problem. While I don't believe I'm willing to serve in the military, there was a time when I thought about it seriously. However, the length of the commitment was one of the first things that put me off. (The history of medical experimentation on soldiers was the next, and then I found out how they deal with gay people and that put an end to my consideration.) I wasn't thinking "maybe I'll join the military and they'll put me through college," I was thinking more like "maybe a career defending my country might be a good thing to do with my life." I can easily imagine that a young person might want to consider a career in the military but be unwilling to make an 8 year commitment just to see how it goes. Certainly I wouldn't sign away 8 years of my life for any career, not knowing if I'd like it or find it rewarding or even be any good at it... at least with my chosen career, if I had hated it I could always have just changed majors in college. If there was such a thing as a genuine 1 or 2 year commitment, with no further obligations, more good people might be willing to give it a try and see how it goes. Of course, I would expect that the financial rewards and post-service benefits to persons leaving military service after such a short commitment would be proportionately low, or perhaps even nonexistant. That would encourage people to use that short term as a way to try out a career, instead of as a way to make a few bucks. End of line.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   5.  Re: Mini-enlistment?   by stogie       at Wed 29 Jan 3:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     To answer your question about reserves: All military enlistment contracts that I'm aware of have an 8 year obligation. To best explain, I'll give you the hypothetical timeline of a single enlistment, as I experienced it: 1) Enlist as a junior in high school. This places you in the recruit pool. You have one year to finish high school and report to recruit training. Seven years to go. 2) Report to recruit training. This places you on an active duty status for four years on the average enlistment (or anything from 19 months to six years, now). Three years to go. 3) Discharge from active duty. This places you either into a reserve unit (weekend warrior) if you volunteer, or into the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). The IRR does not require you to do anything but notify a regional authority of changes in your status that would affect your ability to be recalled to active duty in event of war or national emergency, and to maintain something approximating military standards of physical fitness and conduct. Serve the last three years, and you're a full-fledged veteran. Congratulations! "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy." -Tom Waits   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   6.  Re: Mini-enlistment?   by jukeboxcharlie       at Wed 29 Jan 3:40pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     The selected reserves are the "one weekend a month, two weeks a year" units. Persons in these units are paid military members. The individual ready reserve is an inactive service. You have no obligation to appear for training, you are not paid, but the government can call you up at any time within those 8 years. This is my sig. Here I have a pithy quote, or wry comment.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Re: Mini-enlistment?   by dave78981       at Thu 30 Jan 12:39am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 6     The individual ready reserve is an inactive service. You have no obligation to appear for training... Not true. As long as you are an IRR memeber, you are obliged to to appear whenever DoD sends orders. Granted, there's no set training times, but it does occur. I was in the IRR from 95-2000. With only 4 months remaining on my commitment, I was called up as part of a readiness program that the Army was piloting at the time. The idea was to recall IRR members periodically, so that if they needed to be called up in wartime, they would at least be partly trained. However, since my job in the Army was as a M1A1 tank crewman, and there were no tanks stationed at Fort Stewart, I was instead tasked to design an intranet page on the history of Fort Stewart. I have no idea how that made me more batlle-ready. I have to say, it was pretty jarring to be back in the culture of the military, as I had been out for 7 1/2 years. It wasn't necessarily bad, but it was so different from my civilian life, it was surreal. Well, as I always say, a family of freaks is better than no family at all.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Hey, Does Everybody Remember   by uncarved block       at Wed 29 Jan 7:43pm score of 1     the handful of stories before Gulf War One? Y'know, the ones about those young men who woke up one day and realized they really hadn't . . . thought through the implications of "possible combat service"? I'm no expert in military affairs, but it seems to me that any program or proposal that increases the numbers of men* like this should be strangled in its crib. Of course, any enlistees for the next couple years is going to know full well that they have a decent chance of seeing combat-- but programs like this (that is, in a bureaucracy) can be very difficult to end.       *And they will be men, for quite some time. AFAIK, current military policy prohibits women from almost all combat positions, and the pioneers who get to such jobs will be very aware of the potential risks they face. Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Re: Hey, Does Everybody Remember   by MAYORBOB       at Thu 30 Jan 12:40am score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 9     Actually an enlistee in the Army of today has an excellent opportunity to position himself or herself where they can serve out their active duty tour and not be a combatant (e.g., infantry, armor, artillery, combat engineer, etc.). Because the Army is structured in such a way as to carry its logistical and administrative tail along with it, the ratio is usually about one combatant to ten support personnel. This is not to say that support personnel are immune from combat injuries. As a matter of fact, a good portion of the injuries suffered by U.S. personnel during Gulf War I were by support personnel. The Army really isn't too keen on having combatants who are unwilling or afraid of being there, facing the enemy, liable to take a bullet. That is why, within the all volunteer force of today, all of the Army's combatant units are composed of volunteers who asked to be there. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Citizen Military   by lisaben2001       at Thu 30 Jan 12:36am score of 1.5 nuanced     This sounds suspicious - like a wee a bit more than the draft registration package. Isn't the draft gone? Then why do our kids still have to register for selective service at eighteen? Well, only the boys have to register. My kid started getting stuff from the armed forces when he was five, and they haven't stopped yet. He is almost 20 now. I want him to stay in college. He would be the first man in our family to finish college. But we aren't rich, and I fear that when the government decides they want kids like him in the military, school loan money will just mysteriously disappear, and with unemployment this high, he would have to go into the military to support himself.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  Re: Citizen Military   by A. H. Cretin       at Thu 30 Jan 4:53pm score of 1   in reply to comment 11     This sounds suspicious - like a wee a bit more than the draft registration package. Isn't the draft gone? Then why do our kids still have to register for selective service at eighteen? I'm probably the wrong one to answer this, but hey. Selective Service is maintained in case we need to reinstate the draft at some point in the future. It's my impression that a draft reinstatement is extremely unlikely, as we frankly don't need the manpower. I also doubt loan money will vanish since we don't immediately need more soldiers but we could stand a few million more college graduates. :) My take is that this is just another option, mainly intended to get the Marine Corps and the Air Force to offer the 2 year enlistment the Army and Navy have had for some time now. -A Humorless Cretin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Did I read the wrong item?   by Elvis_x       at Thu 30 Jan 9:30am score of 1.5 astute     What I understood after reading the description, was that this bill would allow the mini-enlisters to do things like serve in AmeriCorp and that AmeriCorp could then serve in Homeland Security functions. Plus there'd be enlistmet functions for seniors in support roles. Which is to say you can enlist and wind up working the Xray maching in the Duluth airport - making sure no nail clippers get through - and not worry about your kid, who's in the day care being watched by somebody's Grandma. Okay, wait, then this makes AmeriCorp a quasi-military organization via the now-formed Corporation for National Defence. Okay wait, wait, wasn't AmeriCorp formed to help promote social welfare through things like Urban Revitalization projects and providing teachers to under-funded schools, that sort of thing? So is social welfare now off the table in favor of Homeland Security? I don't think the story here's the mini-enlistment; I'm thinking the story's all about the re-focus of AmeriCorps.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  Hey! This may work...   by somebaudy       at Thu 30 Jan 10:42am score of 1     Belgium asked its male citizens to spend some time in uniform. Between 1993 and 1994, I was one of the last to do it. Some stayed longer than needed in the Belgian Army. Not for disciplinary reason but because a special status enabled them to become short-term soldiers for a year or two. Instead of the ridiculous pay (roughly the equivalent of 3 euros/ 3$ a day), they were getting a real salary and the opportunity to learn things useful on the job market like driving a truck. So yes, some time helping the army run itself can be a useful experience. [sig]"insert something witty here"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

28.  Hmm   by Victor Lazlo       at Thu 30 Jan 7:55pm score of 1.5     Maybe some of these ChickenHawks who ducked the draft and now are so eager to send American soldiers into harm's way can sign up. Maybe GW can make up those 2 years of duty he owes.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

29.  Casualties   by Airbag       at Fri 31 Jan 5:00pm score of 1     While Congressman Charles Rangel wasted oxygen arguing for a pipe dream I re-read the thread linked to by this write up and while the arguments against Rangel's proposal clearly show the deleterious effects that the draft would have on the military as a functioning operation, the point Rangel was making was that our society should share the body bags equally amongst all the citizens. The importance of this sharing is that everyone in this country, in as much as it is possible, should have the same war. One thing that struck me after reading the thread was that most of those who commented seemed to be supremely confident that the coming war would avoid the condition that made the draft necessary in our past wars, namely, that so many soldiers were killed that replacements were needed constantly in order to refill the ranks. If this coming war starts to require such replacements, the draft will return post-haste. I don't think Rangel is sucking oxygen out of the air when he reminds us of that, whatever political purpose you wish to assign to his proposal.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

30.  Forget about it.   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Sun 2 Feb 8:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 29     The draft is not coming back, barring absolute world-shattering changes in international and US domestic politics--ie. the reemergence of a true peer competitor and the likelihood of all-out WWIII-style warfare. If the US were to suffer a fraction of the casualties in Iraq that would require a return to the draft to replace, the administration would grasp at any straw available to disengage long before conscription entered the picture. The US public is willing to take significantly more casualties than civilian and military elites believe, but if you're talking about decimating the standing forces to the extent that they'd have to be restocked with fresh young faces via conscription, forget about it--an angry mob would hang Bush & Co. from the cherry trees. That being said, Rangel's sentiments are indeed admirable. His so-called proposal for broadening the social roots of military participation is a non-starter politically, however. He knows that full well, and hence his proposal is empty posturing. I would welcome a return to military conscription for essentially the same reasons Rangel expressed--but since that's not going to happen, you have to look to other solutions for diminishing the civil-military gap and giving elites more pause about sending the legions in harm's way. I think Bayh & McCain's plan is an admirable step in the right direction with some chance of actually having some positive impact. Oh, and the military arguments against a draft are overblown--it's just that the generation of officers serving today has no personal experience with draftees prior to the beginnings of the collapse of US morale in Vietnam. Through 1969 or thereabouts, draftees performed wonderfully in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, and military leaders through the early 1980s continued to argue that the all-volunteer force was a disaster and a return to the draft would be necessary. That being said, there's no way it's going to happen in today's political climate. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: Forget about it.   by Airbag       at Mon 3 Feb 8:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 30     I accept that your view is more balanced than mine when you say: The US public is willing to take significantly more casualties than civilian and military elites believe, but if you're talking about decimating the standing forces to the extent that they'd have to be restocked with fresh young faces via conscription, forget about it--an angry mob would hang Bush & Co. from the cherry trees. I would only point out that conflicts that widen to unexpected degrees have a certain inertia that takes nations past the point of pulling out the moment they become immensely unpopular. The draft riots of the Civil War come to mind. Another example is the expansion of the Vietnamese War. Being the commander in chief can put you in a position where you have to decide whether you are throwing good money after bad. When you are that far along with the problem, your approval ratings are bound to go way down. I agree, however, that there a lot factors present today that make such a situation unlikely. I welcome your defense of the draft as a viable institution. It seems that many of the negative aspects are about the shock of changing from one system to the other. The matter does indeed hinge on the ability of the draftees to be good soldiers. Another issue that doesn't directly get addressed by these considerations is the willingness to be soldiers. The Bayh & McCain plan does seem like progress toward widening the base of the volunteer force but does it get closer to having more decision makers share the cost of their decisions by placing their children in harm's way? That, after all, was the glove which Rangel used to slap his fellow law makers. Whether one is talking about coercion or being a volunteer, Rangel's gesture points out a profound generation gap between those who served their country as a matter of duty and the one coming up that sees the military only as a career option. Isn't that gap precisely the "political climate" that limits what realistically can happen?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Broader problems.   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Mon 3 Feb 1:58pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     The decline in elite military participation is indeed one contributor to the civil-military gap--see William Bianco and Jamie Markham, "Vanishing Veterans: The Decline in Military Experience in the US Congress," published in the landmark Soldiers and Civilians: The Civil-Military Gap and American National Security , published by MIT in 2001. But that's only part of the issue--it's not just senators' sons and daughters who aren't entering the service, it's broad segments of America's movers and shakers. That's not to say that the armed forces are recruited from "the poor and the black," as some early critics of the AVF feared--but they're not a cross-section of American society either. You may or may not recall the "American college students support war, as long as they can do it on Playstation" thread from last year [unfortunately, I can't do a search for it]. With regard to conscription, it's important to recognize that the draft was a product of a unique historical moment--an industrialized state waging two total wars and preparing for a third, with a populace possessed of a significant sense of civic obligation and nationalism. That combination sufficed to preserve the draft through the 1960s--but even then it faced a demographic crisis resulting from the arrival of the first wave of the Baby Boom in the recruiting pool. Up until that time, the Selective Service authorities had manipulated an artful system of deferments and exemptions in order to impose some veneer of rationality over the necessary process of failing to conscript a sizable percentage of the nation's available young men. With the approach of the Boomers, however, DoD officials foresaw increasing difficulties justifying drafting Citizen X while skipping Citizen Y--given the large pool of potential recruits, they envisioned a transition to a volunteer force sometime during the 1960s as a solution. The expansion of the Vietnam conflict and the Johnson administration's decision to rely on draftees rather than calling up the reserves to meet the war's increased demands for military manpower pushed back the potential demographic crisis; instead, public support for the draft eventually collapsed along with support for the unpromising war. If the US was to return to a draft, it would have to contend with the post-Watergate suspicion of government and the increased individualism of the American people (a long-term trend and not limited to the US, but certainly significantly increased since 1973). Given the services' reduced manpower demands owing to the changed security environment and changes in technology, the demographic-based "fairness" concerns cited above would be greater than ever--even more so given that the whole point of the project would seem to preclude the deferments and exemptions that kept the system working in its previous incarnation. Complicating matters further, a new draft would have to address very perilous gender issues. I think any 21st century draft would have to include women--but unless one contemplates compelling the services to adapt to a 50/50 gender split, a prospect which I see as extremely unlikely and perhaps even militarily unwise in the middle term, you're then faced with the task of setting arbitrary gender ratios. That's naturally going to lead to resentment from men who are drafted while women stay home because the Congress decided that the services had to remain at least 70% male (or whatever). But if you take too many women, you'll have trouble on the other end of the spectrum with the "Kinder, Gentler Military" enthusiasts who think letting too many women in will fundamentally corrupt the warrior ethos. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: Broader problems.   by Airbag       at Mon 3 Feb 2:58pm score of 1   in reply to comment 32     Thanks for the links. There is a lot to chew on concerning this issue. The links you provide, however, sent me to Plastic limbo. I searched through other means and found the studies' website to be this.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: Broader problems.   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Mon 3 Feb 10:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 33     Yes, Plastic or I screwed up the links somehow. Note that most (all?) of the supporting studies have been removed from the Triangle Institute page following the publication of the book--hence you'll find the Bianco & Markham piece at this site instead. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]