The gross unfairness of an all-volunteer Army

[Mr. Peabody]

Rough Draft
The gross unfairness of an all-volunteer Army.
By Jacob Weisberg
Posted Wednesday, March 22, 2006, at 3:32 PM ET

http://www.slate.com/id/2138481/

Three years after the invasion of Iraq, the United States does not feel much like a country at war. Nearly 20,000 American soldiers have been killed or injured to date, but the more comfortable among us find it shockingly easy to forget about the conflict for weeks at a time. Most middle-class professionals, academics, and journalists don't have relatives or friends serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. We have not been called upon to make any sacrifices, financial or otherwise. We hear less and less about the occupation on the evening news, and even in big cities it is unusual to encounter an anti-war demonstration. The third-anniversary protest staged in New York last weekend was an especially shabby assemblage of moth-eaten radicals.

The main reason that the war remains so remote from the lives of middle-class Americans is the absence of a military draft. This is a subject that no one seems to want to talk about. Supporters of the war definitely do not want to talk about it. President Bush and Vice President Cheney react angrily to any suggestion that a draft might be needed, because they know that the prospect of conscription would make their decision to invade Iraq even more unpopular. Having lived through Vietnam and shirked the draft themselves, they understand that if people anywhere near their own station in life were forced to fight, any remaining support for wars of arguable necessity would dry up and blow away.

Nor does the military want to discuss a draft, even though it is increasingly overstretched, required to rely on declining enlistment standards and "stop loss" orders to maintain even the current, insufficient troop levels. The Pentagon's reason for avoiding the subject is its probably accurate assumption that conscription would yield a less pliable and effective fighting force. Many senior officers remember the Vietnam-era breakdown of discipline and morale, which did massive damage to the military's reputation within society and took decades to repair.

Finally, the young men who might be called do not want to contemplate having to kill, die, or be maimed in a war that inspires little idealism. Nor do their families want to dwell on such possibilities. In the upscale sectors of American society, there remains a primal antipathy to military culture, which has only been heightened by revelations about torture at Abu Ghraib and ongoing discrimination against gay people in the armed forces. The real "two Americas" are not rich versus poor or religious versus secular but military versus civilian.

Contributing to the conspiracy of silence on all sides is the gross unfairness of the way we now share the risk and burden of fighting for one's country. The current distribution is consistent with periods when the United States had a draft that the sons of privilege could readily evade, by hiring "replacements" during the Civil War, or getting an educational deferment or lobbying one's draft board during the Vietnam era. Once again, young people without good opportunities in life are handling the fighting and dying for those with better things to do—only this time, there is not even a pretense of shared responsibility for defending the country. Such injustice is hard to face up to in a country where social equality remains the civic religion.

Because conscription appeals to essentially no one, the United States has lived with the All-Volunteer Force since the end of the Vietnam War. With the nation at peace or involved only in low-grade interventions that entailed limited risk, not having a draft worked relatively well. The military made itself attractive as an avenue of social mobility, offering members of the lower middle class technical training and educational opportunity in exchange for tours of duty. As the Cold War ended, reductions in the level of troops that were needed allowed the armed forces to raise their standards and become more selective. That we didn't need more manpower and that the Pentagon wasn't using the downtrodden for cannon fodder effectively settled the question.

But Iraq has changed all that. A soldier's odds of being killed in Iraq are somewhat lower than they were in Vietnam, but this does not make it a safer place for combatants. The risk of being injured in Iraq is significantly higher than it was in Vietnam—3.1 percent of all those who have served, as opposed to 1.8 percent over a much longer period in Vietnam, according to Newsweek. Thanks to striking advances in field medicine, soldiers who would have died in any other war now survive, but they often do so with catastrophic, life-altering injuries. Dawning comprehension of just how dangerous service in Iraq is has made it harder and harder for the military to meet its personnel goals. Despite raising cash bonuses to $10,000 and college scholarships to $70,000, the Army missed its recruiting target last year by nearly 10 percent. It has now even stopped routinely discharging people with drug and alcohol problems.

There are some who argue that America should bring back the draft because of the ennobling effects of military service—class mixing, personal growth, better mutual understanding across the civilian-military divide, and so on. These are worthy goals but not really sufficient to justify depriving young people of their freedom in the absence of a true national need. What does justify it is the scale of death and injury in Iraq, which makes relying on an all-volunteer force painfully undemocratic and unfair. A resumption of the draft would be everyone's nightmare. But let us be honest enough to admit that not having a draft isn't working either.

Jacob Weisberg is editor of Slate and co-author, with Robert E. Rubin, of In an Uncertain World.

[DarkReign]

Hmmm, if it werent for his summarizing paragraph at the end, I wouldnt have known if he were saying we should or shouldnt re-ins ute the draft.

If the question is, Is it fair? Well, no, but neither is life so deal with it young padawan.

Bush and Co. wouldnt do it for obvious reasons (articulated well inside the article). If they did, we would have pulled out of Iraq after 30 days.

I dont remember the draft age limit? Was it 18-26? I (obviously) wasnt alive for Vietnam, but I do remember there was an age limit.

Dont draft my generation...we would make hippies look like the friggin boy scouts.

[Trainwreck2100]

Dont draft my generation...we would make hippies look like the friggin boy scouts.

Damn right, this generation is full of morons.

[101A]

Damn right, this generation is full of morons.

The "E" Generation I have heard it labeled.

E = En lement

[Oh, Gee!!]

Damn right, this generation is full of morons.

xray, is that you?

[Trainwreck2100]

xray, is that you?

no, but you can't deny that the quality of values and work ethic has gone down.

[Vashner]

What a load of total bull ...

If you don't want to join don't ing join.. toss burgers or work at wal mart. Go to college etc.

God damn ing pussy democrats ball'less coward mother ers need to step the aside and let our troops do there job.

BTW We have several volunteer bases here in town dumb s.

Maybe you can try to pull this off in a city that's not called "Military city USA".

Like pack your up and get the out. Maybe move to china. I hear they have an excellent constription program if that's what your looking for.

Addressed to Mr Wiez "my is smaller than an anti" berg.

[Extra Stout]

no, but you can't deny that the quality of values and work ethic has gone down.

Outside of South Texas, "Mexican work ethic" has come to mean what "Protestant work ethic" once meant.

I know that's hard to believe in San Antonio.

[Jim Rome]

Mexicans are fat and lazy here in L.A.

[Hook Dem]

Mexicans are fat and lazy here in L.A.

Jim Nabors would say......Ummmm....you're going to for that one!

[Ocotillo]

The column makes some good points. Harken back to WWII when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The nation mobilized into an efficient war machine in no time flat. Many volunteered for military service including the President's own sons. What this nation accomplished in the five years following 1940 was nothing short of spectacular. The draft provided more men as well.

We had an enemy that clearly were sovereign nations and had showed the ability to conquer and subserve their neighbors. Our nation while it was certainly a world power was in an isolationist mood and suffering through an economic depression.

Contrast that with 9-11. A bunch of rag tag muslims with an ax to grind hijacked airplanes and you know the rest. People were moved to military service and many did join to help track down those responsible. Our leader(s) never called for sacrifice or for all to help in any way they could. Rhetorically Bush compared this criminal act with the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Somewhere along the line he got sidetracked into waging a war against Saddam Hussein. Those responsible for the attacks on the Pentagaon and the WTC moved the back burner. They were brought back up when politically advantageous especially during the '04 campaign. Do you notice how we don't have any elevated terror alerts anymore now that Bush isn't running for anything?

Iraq was an elective war and Weisberg is right. If there was a draft and the sons of the middle class and the wealthy were called to serve, the war would have been over in 30 days if it had ever even been launched.

He is right also that when an divisive mission is undertaken, an all volunteer military will peform well but will be streched thin if the action is protracted and lasts longer than 12 to 18 months. The lesson is you only go to war as a last result and when the overwhelming majority of the country believes it is necessary. Otherwise, you will end up with what we have now in Iraq.

Almost everyone in this country supports the troops and is thankful for their service to country. What is supporting the troops though? Is it something you just say because it sounds right and you don't want what happened to the guys returning from Vietnam to be repeated? Is it sticking a yellow ribbon magnet on the back of a Tahoe? Is it sitting at a computer keyboard and typing the type of venom Vashner hurls at anyone that disagrees with his team, err, President?

I would offer that supporting the troops would be strengthing veterans benefits rather than cutting them. I would offer that as a country we should forfeit the tax cuts that allow this war to go on with borrowed money rather than paying for it. I would offer supporting the troops is getting involved in politics to get rid of the politicians who allow this sort of maniacal foreign policy to go on. I would offer supporting the troops is sending them letters of support, encouragement and admiration rathen than buying them a subscription to the "Limbaugh Letter." I would offer supporting the troops is aggressively defending our cons utional rights against those within our own government who would allow them to be eroded. I would offer supporting the troops involves actually enlisting in the military to actually lend a hand.

I would argue supporting the troops in doing your utmost to ensure they are not misused by going into elective wars that have nothing to do with the our national security beyond weakening it.

[Trainwreck2100]

Outside of South Texas, "Mexican work ethic" has come to mean what "Protestant work ethic" once meant.

I know that's hard to believe in San Antonio.

I think that's because alot of South Texas Mexicans come from Mexico.

[Duff McCartney]

The column makes some good points. Harken back to WWII when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The nation mobilized into an efficient war machine in no time flat. Many volunteered for military service including the President's own sons. What this nation accomplished in the five years following 1940 was nothing short of spectacular. The draft provided more men as well.

We had an enemy that clearly were sovereign nations and had showed the ability to conquer and subserve their neighbors. Our nation while it was certainly a world power was in an isolationist mood and suffering through an economic depression.

Contrast that with 9-11. A bunch of rag tag muslims with an ax to grind hijacked airplanes and you know the rest. People were moved to military service and many did join to help track down those responsible. Our leader(s) never called for sacrifice or for all to help in any way they could. Rhetorically Bush compared this criminal act with the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Somewhere along the line he got sidetracked into waging a war against Saddam Hussein. Those responsible for the attacks on the Pentagaon and the WTC moved the back burner. They were brought back up when politically advantageous especially during the '04 campaign. Do you notice how we don't have any elevated terror alerts anymore now that Bush isn't running for anything?

Iraq was an elective war and Weisberg is right. If there was a draft and the sons of the middle class and the wealthy were called to serve, the war would have been over in 30 days if it had ever even been launched.

He is right also that when an divisive mission is undertaken, an all volunteer military will peform well but will be streched thin if the action is protracted and lasts longer than 12 to 18 months. The lesson is you only go to war as a last result and when the overwhelming majority of the country believes it is necessary. Otherwise, you will end up with what we have now in Iraq.

Almost everyone in this country supports the troops and is thankful for their service to country. What is supporting the troops though? Is it something you just say because it sounds right and you don't want what happened to the guys returning from Vietnam to be repeated? Is it sticking a yellow ribbon magnet on the back of a Tahoe? Is it sitting at a computer keyboard and typing the type of venom Vashner hurls at anyone that disagrees with his team, err, President?

I would offer that supporting the troops would be strengthing veterans benefits rather than cutting them. I would offer that as a country we should forfeit the tax cuts that allow this war to go on with borrowed money rather than paying for it. I would offer supporting the troops is getting involved in politics to get rid of the politicians who allow this sort of maniacal foreign policy to go on. I would offer supporting the troops is sending them letters of support, encouragement and admiration rathen than buying them a subscription to the "Limbaugh Letter." I would offer supporting the troops is aggressively defending our cons utional rights against those within our own government who would allow them to be eroded. I would offer supporting the troops involves actually enlisting in the military to actually lend a hand.

I would argue supporting the troops in doing your utmost to ensure they are not misused by going into elective wars that have nothing to do with the our national security beyond weakening it.

I think back then was just a different time. If you've ever read All Quiet On The Western Front you'll know what I'm talking about, in one part of the book he says, "Even ones parents were ready with the word coward." When he describes people not volunteering for war.

Now that isn't done and that's a good thing. I would never call anyone who avoids war a coward, especially one they don't believe in.

[boutons_]

WW's I and II, maybe even Korea, were "legit" wars where the was no choice but to respond.

VN and Iraq wars are wars of choice, esp Iraq, by politicians, and both of those wars lost support rather quickly with the vast majority of the US public.

One would have to be stupid or extremely naive to risk dying for Rove's 2004 re-election ploy , aka, the Iraq war.

[DarkReign]

Damn right, this generation is full of morons.

Yup, bunch of morons who are going to be paying your generation's Social Security. What did we get?

[Yonivore]

What a stupid article.

With the exception of Clinton -- who was too busy "gettin' busy" to handle national security matters but still managed over 4,302 active duty deaths in his first term -- President Bush has the lowest number of active duty deaths of the past four presidencies' first terms.

On the third anniversay of the Iraq war, the MSM keeps bombarding us with stories and statistics trying to compare this war to the carnage in Vietnam, trying to make us think that US soldiers are dying at an alarming number due to Bush's failures.

Take a look at the actual US Military Casualty figures since 1980. If you do the math, you wil find quite a few surpises. First of all, let's compare numbers of US Military personnel that died during the first term of the last four presidents.

George W. Bush . . . . . 5187 (2001-2004)
Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996)
George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992)
Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984)

Even during the (per MSM) utopic peacetime of Bill Clinton's term, we lost 4302 service personnel. H.W. Bush and Reagan actually lost significantly more personnel while never fighting an extensive war, much less a simulaltaneous war on two theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan). Even the dovish Carter lost more people duing his last year in office, in 1980 lost 2392, than W. has lost in any single year of his presidency. (2005 figures are not available but I would wager the numbers would be slightly higher than 2004.)

In 2004, more soldiers died outside of Iraq and Afghanistan than died inside these two war zones (900 in these zones, 987 outside these zones). The reason is that there are usually a fair number that die every year in training accidents, as well as a small number of illness and suicide. Yet the MSM would make you think that US soldiers are dying at a high number in these zones, and at a significantly higher number than in past years or under past presidents. This is all simlpy outright lies and distortion.

Taken all together, it is clear to see that the military is actually doing a fine job and suffering very low casualty rates. It also shows that our enemies are not quite as efficient as the MSM and world press would like them to be.

It would seem that Bush and Rumsfield are actually doing a wonderful job in Iraq and, although there have been setbacks, the war is far from the tragedy the press wants us to believe.

As for the injury rate, and I'll have to find the military source again, but more than 60% (maybe it was 70%) were back on active duty within 72 hours. the remainder, with the exception of those relatively few who are permanently disabled, were back in service or honorably (not medically) discharged over the subsequent period.

I call bull on the article.