Restoring the Draft: No Panacea

[Monsoon65]

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.

[QRQ 30]

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]

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

[Pete]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

....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]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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?

[kgoerz]

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

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]

Originally Posted by Fiercely Loyal

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

[RTK]

I'd rather do twice the work shorthanded with people that want to be in than have this happen.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by RTK

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

[cold1]

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]

Originally Posted by cold1

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]

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]

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

[kgoerz]

Originally Posted by LongWire

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]

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!!!!!!!