View Full Version : Restoring the Draft: No Panacea
Monsoon65
07-21-2007, 14:07
I love Murtha's idea of paying draftees less! What a jerk.
By MARK THOMPSON/WASHINGTON
Sat Jul 21, 12:00 PM ET
Even as there's talk inside the Pentagon of extending the troop surge in Iraq well into 2008, the U.S. military remains in a vise, crushed between the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have made recruiting more difficult. Right now, there are only two real ways to extend or even increase the surge: call up more reservists - always tough to do in an election year - or extend active-duty combat tours from the current morale-wrecking 15 months to an even more painful 18 months. But Marine General Peter Pace, outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs, reassured GIs in Afghanistan this week that 18-month combat tours are not, as has been rumored, in their future. "An 18-month tour has zero, zero, none, nada, squat, nothing, no validity, OK?" he said. "I want to make sure you got that."
So then what about the third, most controversial option - is it time to reinstitute the draft? That option has a certain appeal as the Army fell short of its active-duty recruiting goal for June by about 15%. It is the second consecutive month the service's enlistment effort has slipped as public discontent grows over the war in Iraq.
Bringing back mandatory service has been the refrain of many who want to put the brakes on the Iraq war; if every young man is suddenly a potential grunt on his way to Baghdad, the thinking goes, the war would end rather quickly. It's also an argument made by those who are uneasy that the burden of this war is being unfairly shouldered by the 1.4-million-strong U.S. military and no one else. But a new report from the Congressional Budget Office this week makes clear that resuming the draft would be no panacea.
The report, requested by Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, says that drafting people could make it easier for the Army to reach its 2012 goal of 547,000 soldiers. It might also save some money if Congress opted to pay draftees less than volunteers. But the downside, the report claims, would be a less effective fighting force, thanks to a sudden influx of draftees who would remain in uniform for much shorter spells than today's all-volunteer soldiers.
"Usually, greater accumulated knowledge and skills come with increased experience," the report notes. "Because most draftees leave after completing a two-year obligation, a draft might affect the services' ability to perform those functions efficiently." To maintain the same capability, the CBO suggests, the Army might have to grow, which could eliminate any savings. On the other hand, increased training costs for draftees - with less time in uniform, more have to be trained - could be offset by cuts in advertising and bonuses now used to entice volunteer recruits.
The report says that while 91% of last year's recruits were high school graduates, only 80% of U.S. residents aged 18 to 24 have attained that level of education. And high-school graduates, the military says, make better soldiers than dropouts. The CBO, which does not make recommendations but only charts options for lawmakers, estimates that somewhere between 27,000 and 165,000 would be drafted each year. That relative small slice - some 2 million males turn 18 each year - could resurrect the problems seen in the Vietnam era when deferments and friendly draft boards kept some well-connected young men out of uniform. Under current law, women could not be drafted.
If it doesn't make military or economic sense to launch the draft, what about the notion of fairness? Critics have claimed that minorities are over-represented in the all-volunteer military because they have fewer options in the civilian world. The CBO disputes that, saying that "members of the armed forces are racially and ethnically diverse." African Americans accounted for 13% of active-duty recruits in 2005, just under their 14% share of 17-to-49-year-olds in the overall U.S. population. And minorities are not being used as cannon fodder. "Data on fatalities indicate that minorities are not being killed [in Iraq and Afghanistan] at greater rates than their representation in the force," the study says. "Rather, fatalities of white service members have been higher than their representation in the force," in large part because whites are over-represented in the military's combat, as opposed to support, jobs.
This is the same argument used to do away with the draft. Then they said the well to do and connected had ways around the draft and less fortunate served.
Critics have claimed that minorities are over-represented in the all-volunteer military because they have fewer options in the civilian world.
Be careful what you ask for. A draft woll remove the need for higher pay incentives. When I joined I got $72/month. Jump school was a real incentive since it almost doubled our pay.
The Reaper
07-21-2007, 14:56
Young men?
I don't think so.
The next time the draft machine fires up, half are going to have to be young women, or a whole lot of laws are going to have to change back.
How can you have a national service requirement and half the population is automatically exempt?
Bring back the draft and get more exemptions, conscientious objectors, gaybos, whackos, increased numbers of HS dropouts and criminals, people who don't want to be there, in an ever increasing higher tech force.
TR
....Bring back the draft and get more exemptions, conscientious objectors, gaybos, whackos, increased numbers of HS dropouts and criminals, people who don't want to be there, in an ever increasing higher tech force.
TR
And that's exactly what the Democrats want. Plus the added bonus of massive demonstrations around the country, burning draft cards & American Flags - Oh, yeah, I can see it now.
Fiercely Loyal
07-21-2007, 18:48
Bring back the draft and get more exemptions, conscientious objectors, gaybos, whackos, increased numbers of HS dropouts and criminals, people who don't want to be there, in an ever increasing higher tech force.
So Sir is it safe to say you are against the lowering of the standards for entrance into the military? And what do you think would happen if instead of the draft they let gays openly join and serve the military. Or other such options that increase troop numbers?
A Military Draft? Are you saying that our Country will actually ask it's Citizens to sacrifice and give back to the very Country they live in. Force common Citizens to shoot Guns.....at real people. All for the purpose of this Country's survival in a time of War. In the year 2007. Know thats just Crazy Talk:rolleyes:
Seriously, IMO there are many who will step up and answer the call to duty. But their dedication will be overshadowed by the you cant make me do it or I have rights crowed. Something has to be done.
The volunteer force was never designed to fight a long term war by itself. Isn't the all volunteer force expected to fight a one front war for about three years max? Seems there should be more talk about a draft and winning this war. Then talk about pulling out. I guess most think that Iraq is the war to end all wars. My Kids are only 12&13. Me and my wife already discussed the possibility of them being drafted in the future.
More and more people are convincing themselves that the Enemy just got lucky on 911. It won't happen again. We are over reacting. Recent foiled attacks seem to prove the opposite.
The WWII Memorial in DC has 24 Panels surrounding it. Each one represents a Front, Commitment, Battle, Industrial Movement or Major Campaign during WWII. The 24 Panels represent this country's total commitment to victory. Today our country is having a hard time to what is equal to just a couple of those Panels.
The Reaper
07-21-2007, 19:40
So Sir is it safe to say you are against the lowering of the standards for entrance into the military? And what do you think would happen if instead of the draft they let gays openly join and serve the military. Or other such options that increase troop numbers?
I think if you read my posts, you will know what I think.
Read more, post less.
TR
I'd rather do twice the work shorthanded with people that want to be in than have this happen.
The Reaper
07-21-2007, 20:06
I'd rather do twice the work shorthanded with people that want to be in than have this happen.
Exactly what I always told my bosses, especially when we were talking candidly about numbers.
I would rather have a team of eight, with people you can count on, than 12, and four needing full-time supervision.
Clearly, the majority of these people would have to disproportionately go to outfits with short train-up periods and low standards. Like the leg infantry in the old days.
Congress was told the cost of an all-volunteer force, and accepted it. Now is a little late to be changing their minds, unless they want to establish a national service requrement with no waivers.
TR
This articles seems to just want to push buttons especially with the comments about the minority representation.
As far as a draft goes, wouldnt it be more prudent to just start calling back former military? After all they would be trained already, they had already volunteered once, and they would be more mature. That seems to make more since to me than drafting kids how do not want to be there.
The Reaper
07-21-2007, 21:31
This articles seems to just want to push buttons especially with the comments about the minority representation.
As far as a draft goes, wouldnt it be more prudent to just start calling back former military? After all they would be trained already, they had already volunteered once, and they would be more mature. That seems to make more since to me than drafting kids how do not want to be there.
Already done, to some degree. Stop Loss voided enlistment contracts starting in 2001.
How many broken and old men do you need in the force?
How many can you bring back at their former grade without screwing up the pay grade and strength numbers? How do you incentive them to return and sacrifice further when so few of their civilian peers do anything at all?
How will that affect the willingness of new members to enlist after they see that even after the contract is over and you have honorably served, your life can still be turned upside down and more asked?
BTW, minorities choose in overwhelming numbers to serve in support units. Combat arms are mostly white kids, and have been since the draft ended.
TR
LongWire
07-22-2007, 09:45
They wouldn't need a draft if they started adding more incentive to enlist.
We all Bleed and Grieve at the loss of Our Brothers. I think the Country should be bleeding a little bit more for those Sacrifices.
All service members should be tax free, for the duration of service, with points added towards time served, as well as benefits. I.E., you get out at 10 yrs and get 50% tax free, and 50% benefits for life. Add time and the incentive goes up nominally with 100% benefits and tax free at 20. You serve beyond 20, and they have to start paying even more into your retirement.
Survivor benefits? Let those grieving back home receive 100% benefits and tax free, as well as retirement to help alleviate the burden.
The years of diminishing returns and benefits should be reversed at this point. Those of us who have served know how it feels to be given the short end of the stick, and have more of it taken away each year. If you made it beneficial to serve again, and actually made incentives that were valuable and worth shooting for then I think you would see more people stepping up and continuing to serve, than what you have today.
Sometimes Patriotism isn't enough.
Those of us who have been on teams know what it is to be a part of something good. Sometimes that is not enough, when the day or a career is over. This would restore those feelings and carry them on for a lifetime.
You serve 1 term in Congress and no longer have to pay Social Security for life. Who thinks that those serving in that high position make more of a sacrifice than those on the Battlefield?
If anyone has read Starship Troopers, this would be my spin on it, since everyone born here is a citizen.
The Reaper
07-22-2007, 12:09
I have long advocated that all military pay and allowances be tax free. We pay our debt to the nation already in blood. Eliminating taxes for servicemembers merely cuts out the middle man at the IRS who collects it from us to pay us.
If I thought there was a hope in hell of it being passed, I would propose a Constitutional Amendment to reflect Heinlein's concept. If you object to military service, fine, do an extra year in some public service building roads, in the Peace Corps, working in a day care center, etc. EVERYONE must serve though, or forfeit the right to vote. Those who would sacrifice nothing for the nation and the rights would take them for granted.
I do not believe that the Founding Fathers believed that so few would demand so much and provide so little.
You don't want to serve, fine, sit at home and enjoy every benefit of this country but the right to vote and to hold elected office.
Perhaps the thought of losing that right would cause some to appreciate the right to vote more seriously. The low turn-outs concern me for the future of our republic.
TR
They wouldn't need a draft if they started adding more incentive to enlist.
We all Bleed and Grieve at the loss of Our Brothers. I think the Country should be bleeding a little bit more for those Sacrifices.
All service members should be tax free, for the duration of service, with points added towards time served, as well as benefits. I.E., you get out at 10 yrs and get 50% tax free, and 50% benefits for life. Add time and the incentive goes up nominally with 100% benefits and tax free at 20. You serve beyond 20, and they have to start paying even more into your retirement.
Survivor benefits? Let those grieving back home receive 100% benefits and tax free, as well as retirement to help alleviate the burden.
The years of diminishing returns and benefits should be reversed at this point. Those of us who have served know how it feels to be given the short end of the stick, and have more of it taken away each year. If you made it beneficial to serve again, and actually made incentives that were valuable and worth shooting for then I think you would see more people stepping up and continuing to serve, than what you have today.
Sometimes Patriotism isn't enough.
Those of us who have been on teams know what it is to be a part of something good. Sometimes that is not enough, when the day or a career is over. This would restore those feelings and carry them on for a lifetime.
You serve 1 term in Congress and no longer have to pay Social Security for life. Who thinks that those serving in that high position make more of a sacrifice than those on the Battlefield?
If anyone has read Starship Troopers, this would be my spin on it, since everyone born here is a citizen.
+1 Those bonuses are like impulse shopping. IMO a little insulting. They are a good chunk of change but they really aren't going to change your life. If they dropped the Bonuses and increased the Bennie's most smart people would take it. I never reenlisted because of a Bonus. The three I got were nice but I would of reenlisted anyway. When I retired I could not come up with one positive reason besides being SF to stay in over 20. The day I signed out was the hardest day of my life. But I knew it was time to move on.
The difference between E-8 and E-7 retirement pay over thirty years. I made that difference up in the first six months as a civilian. If they would of increased retirement pay drastically for every year over 20 I probably would of considered it. Because it would of had a long term impact. But a $150 more a month to stay in two more years. Two more years of tearing my body up. Away from family. They have to give the guys something that says you will not regret this 10-20 years from now.
They have to make the first reenlistment really worth it. After that most people are committed to a career. The next big incentive comes at the 20 year mark. Investment programs or a bond program that really pays back. Even these sleazy contract companies give us 401K options and we never worked for them before.
LongWire
07-22-2007, 19:58
Should I also say that I would make this Retroactive, for those who have already done their time.
I believe that there are a shitload of Vets that we owe reparations to.
Is this feasible? I think so, not sure if it would get past the Dem crowd, but I think we should stop saying that We Support Our Troops, when in reality we need to take a number like everyone else.
I'm pretty sick of the Rhetoric at this point, and I'm sure that it Pales in Comparison to what Our Nam brothers went through.
Yeah we owe Bigtime!!!!!!!
I enjoy Starship troopers, I relly like the idea of serving to become a citizen.
On another note, TR not everybody is old and broken. Unlike most of the people here I only served two years. I guess that I am still MOS qualified because I pursued it as a career out here in the civilian world. I am sure that I am not the only person out there that is stil young enough to particpate. So from my limited expeirence I think that I would prefer to have the more mature former military personell recalled than have 18-20 year olds drafted. Also I think americans would rather see their spouses recalled than their children drafted.
A question I have is, would he UCMJ be able to deal with a concsript Army as it stands now?
How many can you bring back at their former grade without screwing up the pay grade and strength numbers
Couldnt you start by calling up the former E1s-E3s first, and then as the need grows call back the NCOs.
How do you incentive them to return and sacrifice further when so few of their civilian peers do anything at all?
The tax free incentives would be great but it is not going to happen. There is no incentive just as with a draft. I personnelly cannot worry about my civilian peers and how much they contribute, I did it because it was my duty and I wanted an education. I am sure that most of us feel somewhat of a disconnect with the civilian world, They seem to be happily ignorant of what is going on outside their little sphere of influence. So how many of us former members really care about what the civilians are sacrificing.
How will that affect the willingness of new members to enlist after they see that even after the contract is over and you have honorably served, your life can still be turned upside down and more asked?
How bad did the Stop loss program hurt enlistment numbers? I honestly do not know.
Yes it will hurt somewhat, but it is no different than being on inactive reserve status.
I maybe mistaken but I think that the fine print of my contract said something to the effect of being subject to recall at anytime of war. It has been 15 years since I have seen that contract so I am probably not remembering correct.
BTW, minorities choose in overwhelming numbers to serve in support units. Combat arms are mostly white kids, and have been since the draft ended.
Yes sir, I was not disputing that. I did not state my point of view very clearly so here is another shot at it.
The single statement of " Critics have claimed that minorities are over-represented in the all-volunteer military because they have fewer options in the civilian world. " is nothing more than an inflammatory fallicy. Minorities have just as much oppertunity as I do out here, besides I do not get the benefit of affirmative action nor do I recieve any type of minority status, so "they"can blow it out of their backside.
I do like the other suggestions of true incentives to enlist.
I have long advocated that all military pay and allowances be tax free. We pay our debt to the nation already in blood. Eliminating taxes for servicemembers merely cuts out the middle man at the IRS who collects it from us to pay us.
If I thought there was a hope in hell of it being passed, I would propose a Constitutional Amendment to reflect Heinlein's concept. If you object to military service, fine, do an extra year in some public service building roads, in the Peace Corps, working in a day care center, etc. EVERYONE must serve though, or forfeit the right to vote. Those who would sacrifice nothing for the nation and the rights would take them for granted.
I do not believe that the Founding Fathers believed that so few would demand so much and provide so little.
You don't want to serve, fine, sit at home and enjoy every benefit of this country but the right to vote and to hold elected office.
Perhaps the thought of losing that right would cause some to appreciate the right to vote more seriously. The low turn-outs concern me for the future of our republic.
TR
+1 A long story short: I did a year as an Americorps (think Domestic Peace Corps) volunteer after I graduated college and before I hit the Army. I did business and community development work in a neighborhood that needed it, working through the local chamber of commerce, and living on about 500-600 a month. It both sucked and I loved it; would do it again and would recommend it to anyone.
The quality of service is different from that of a person who goes into combat arms, but, in my mind, still a vital contribution to what our country needs: involved citizens. In a country that seems to believe that yellow ribbons on their cars constitutes patriotism, actual service of one form or another would allow voters to say, "this is MY country" and really mean it.
I find myself in complete agreement with both TR and LongWire.
We already exempt the first $75,000 of income for expatriates - why
not extend an equivalent benefit to those who have risked and sacrificed
far more? We pay considerable sums to contractors such as Blackwater - why
not pay highly trained soldiers at a similar rate?
But I suspect, as TR brings out, the money isn't the key. Our active duty
and retired military deserve considerably more respect than they get. At least
things are somewhat better than during Vietnam, when returning soldiers were
treated quite badly. Of course, persuading our current society to respect
anyone or anything may be problematic.
All that said, the need for a draft may be rendered moot by external
events. Presently, we have a strong economy with a strong social
safety net. Most suppose this will continue indefinitely. I question
the assumption. If I'm right, then in a decade or so there may be
quite a few young men and women eagerly seeking out the recruiters. Then
again, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong...
groundup
07-23-2007, 22:24
I think we should increase the tax-free allowances we get without decreasing our normal increases in base pay. I think Congress should approve a large pay increase ASAP. I want to see more going towards NCOs. I think less of an increase is needed for E1-E4 considering 17-21 yr olds aren't usually making what they can make in the military at that age. After the college age, experience and education catch up with them.
I would like to see full BAH for Reserve components when on Title 32. I think everyone's healthcare should be free and accessible since it is vital that we keep Soldiers healthy.
Like has been said - I don't want someone "in the foxhole with me that would rather smoke a blunt than watch my back". I think all people (men and women) should serve their country in some way. I don't think the military is for everyone, but I do like the idea of Americorps and civilian organizations that help people. I think people should just do it. Maybe an aggressive campaign to get people to be more patriotic would be better than forcing anyone to do it.
I don't think anyone owes me for my service. I joined knowing what I would receive financially. I did receive more knowledge then I could ever imagine.
If Tax breaks and increased pay were to be implemented. The desire to serve or be a Soldier has to be the principle reason for signing up. Not money. Just like the desire to be SF cant be motivated by the possibility of making rank faster.
There are many ways someone older or broken can serve. When I was in charge of SFAUC we hit a point where we had six people on ACAP. Just bad timing. I was called in and asked if I was running a retirement home over there. I said yes, absolutely. We want people with only two years or less before retirement. Who else has that level of experience to pass on.
We also tried to always have a couple of young guys around who would return to a Team after their two years. Every week guys would come into the office asking to be assigned to SFAUC. Except for a few the ones with less then ten years in SF were turned away.
The large amount of people retiring at the time was timing and nothing else. With the surge in SF recruitment around 1983. What did they think was going to happen in 2003.