Why you're stupid if you think

[Guest Cerebus]

A good breakdown of that slippery Right Wing Neo-Con Fred Kaplan:

 

The False Promises of a Draft

Why conscription won't improve the military.

By Fred Kaplan

Posted Wednesday, June 23, 2004, at 4:30 PM PT

 

It's a complex business, calculating how many troops a nation needs. No matter how you do the math, though, one thing is clear: The United States doesn't have enough.

 

Should we, must we, bring back the draft to fill the gaps?

 

We need to do something. Simply to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan (and we're doing a less-than-adequate job of that), the U.S. Army has mobilized all its available brigades, delayed their rotations back home, and turned the Guard and Reserves' "weekend warriors" into full-time soldiers. Despite all this, the Army still needs to bring in 4,000 troops from the once-untouchable garrison in South Korea. More desperately, it's ordering to Iraq members of the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, the outfit in Ft. Irwin, Calif., that trains all other Army units for desert warfare. This is like melting down the lathe to make more metal.

 

In short, we are stretched thin. If tomorrow brought another crisis requiring U.S. ground forces, it's not clear where they would come from or how they would get there.

 

The prospect of compulsory military service raises fundamental questions—and agonizing dilemmas—for a free and democratic society. On the one hand, should the state have the right to compel its citizens to kill and possibly be killed? (This is very different matter from the compulsion to pay taxes or serve on juries, except to extreme libertarians.) On the other hand, should we, as citizens, be allowed to evade this ultimate obligation by turning it over to the poorer members of society—those who can't find good-paying jobs except in the military?

 

Rep. Charles Rangel, the political leader of Harlem and the dean of New York's Democratic congressional delegation, is proposing a revival of the draft, in part to address precisely this issue of social justice—"to make it clear," as he said last year, "that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices." Rangel, who fought in the Korean War, added, with a twist of the knife, "Those who love this country have a patriotic obligation to defend this country. For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance."

 

Rangel had a second motive for bringing back the draft—to reduce the likelihood of military adventures in the first place. "I truly believe," he said, "that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility."

 

It has been widely noted that only one U.S. senator has had a son fighting in Iraq. Might more lawmakers have been more hesitant to vote for that war had their sons and daughters been eligible for call-up?

 

Rangel's premises have some validity, but not as much as he apparently thinks.

 

For one thing, today's all-volunteer American military is not nearly as poor or as black as it once was.

 

In 2002 (the most recent year for which official data have been compiled), 182,000 people enlisted in the U.S. military. Of these recruits, 16 percent were African-American. By comparison, blacks constituted 14 percent of 18-to-24-year-olds in the U.S. population overall. In other words, black young men and women are only slightly over-represented among new enlistees. Hispanics, for their part, are under-represented, comprising just 11 percent of recruits, compared with 16 percent of 18-to-24-year-olds.

 

Looking at the military as a whole, not just at those who signed up in a single year, blacks do represent a disproportionate share—22 percent of all U.S. armed forces. By comparison, they make up 13 percent of 18-to-44-year-old civilians. The difference is that blacks re-enlist at a higher rate than whites. (Hispanics remain under-represented: 10 percent of all armed forces, as opposed to 14 percent of 18-to-44-year-old civilians.)

 

Still, the military's racial mix is more diverse than it used to be. In 1981, African-Americans made up 33 percent of the armed forces. So, over the past two decades, their share has diminished by one-third. This decline began in the mid-'80s, when the military decided no longer to accept re-enlistments from soldiers who scored low on the aptitude test.

 

As a result, the scores have risen since the '80s. More than that, the aptitude of U.S. military personnel now exceeds that of American civilians.

 

Scores are divided into five categories. Categories I and II score in the 65th to 99th percentiles. Category IIIs score in the 31st to 64th percentiles, Category IVs in the 10th to 30th percentiles, Category Vs in the bottom 10th percentile. Here's how the scores break down, for recent recruits and for civilians:

 

Recruits Civilians

 

Category I & II 41 percent 36 percent

(65th to 99th percentiles)

 

 

Category III 58 percent 34 percent

(31st to 64th percentiles)

 

 

Category IV 1 percent 21 percent

(10th to 30th percentiles)

 

Category V 0 percent 9 percent

(bottom 10th percentile)

 

On balance, by this measure, those who volunteer for the military are smarter than those who don't.

 

Other indicators confirm this impression. The average recruit has an 11th-grade reading level; the average civilian can read at a 10th-grade level. Nearly all recruits—97 percent of female, 94 percent of male—graduated from high school; 79 percent of civilians have high-school diplomas. Officers are better-educated still: All are now required to have college degrees.

 

In short, today's armed forces are not the downtrodden, ethnically lopsided social rejects that they tended to be after the Vietnam War, when the all-volunteer military came into being.

 

Bringing back the draft would lasso the social dregs along with the society elite. Would the net effect be a "more equitable representation of people making sacrifices," as Rangel put it? Maybe, maybe not. Even with a draft, not everyone would serve. About 11 million Americans are 20 to 26 years old. The military doesn't need 11 million people. A draft would have to involve some sort of lottery. If that's the way it goes, there should be no exemptions (except for the physically disabled, the mentally incompetent, convicted felons, and perhaps conscientious objectors). Still, unless a military draft was one component of a compulsory national-service program (the subject of another essay), only some would be called. It's a matter of chance whether the kids from the suburbs would be called more than the kids from the projects.

 

There is a still more basic question: What is the purpose of a military? Is it to spread the social burden—or to fight and win wars? The U.S. active-duty armed forces are more professional and disciplined than at any time in decades, perhaps ever. This is so because they are composed of people who passed comparatively stringent entrance exams—and, more important, people who want to be there or, if they no longer want to be there, know that they chose to be there in the first place. An Army of draftees would include many bright, capable, dedicated people; but it would also include many dumb, incompetent malcontents, who would wind up getting more of their fellow soldiers killed.

 

It takes about six months to put a soldier through basic training. It takes a few months more to train one for a specialized skill. The kinds of conflicts American soldiers are likely to face in the coming decades will be the kinds of conflicts they are facing in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Bosnia—"security and stabilization operations," in military parlance. These kinds of operations require more training—and more delicate training—than firing a rifle, driving a tank, or dropping a bomb.

 

If conscription is revived, draftees are not likely to serve more than two years. Right now, the average volunteer in the U.S. armed forces has served five years. By most measures, an Army of draftees would be less experienced, less cohesive—generally, less effective—than an Army of volunteers. Their task is too vital to tolerate such a sacrifice for the cause of social justice, especially when that cause isn't so urgent to begin with.

 

Would lawmakers be less likely to approve and fund wars if their children and the children of their friends might be drafted to fight? The answer is unclear. The one senator whose son fought in Iraq, Sen. Tim Johnson, Dem-S.D., voted for the war resolution and all subsequent funding measures. True, the senator's son, who was serving in the 101st Airborne Division, did volunteer; Johnson's vote could be seen as a token of support for his son. Would other senators vote differently? If patriotism or party loyalty did not play a role, might they fear accusations of selfishness or cowardice if they seemed to oppose a war simply to save their children's hides?

 

Nonetheless, we do need more troops. How do we get them, if not from a draft? The inescapable answer is that we have to pay more for them, maybe a lot more. Those of us who do not volunteer enjoy more freedom, leisure, and in many cases income, as a result. It is not asking too much to sacrifice some of that extra income for those who risk the ultimate sacrifice.

 

Yes I know most of you guys, wisely, figured out that the likelyhood of a draft was pretty damn low last time the subject was brought up but this is good ammo for morons who suggest the draft is coming back or the military is severly unequal (i.e. Mikey Moore).

[Guest MikeSC]

Heck, that was a point somebody made about Moore's movie --- he griped that the forces will come from black neighborhoods --- yet every troop he interviewed seemed to be white.

 

There won't be a draft as it'd be political suicide.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Not if you draft all the black kids from the ghetto -- their parents weren't voting Republican anyway...

[Guest Hero to all Children]

But if you exclusively drafted black lower class people a lot of middle class white people who could vote Republican and sometimes do would get their panties in a knot. And seeing as the US is more or less evenly democrat and republican you can assume that the outraged masses who would vote for whoever promises to make that undone would be the ones who decide the next bout of elections.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Ok, Hero, you're new here, and you seem like a decent enough sort. Here's a FYI: If you take 99.9% of the stuff I say here seriously, it's your problem not mine.

 

Now, where was I? Oh, yeah. Drafting black kids.

 

Say, whatever happened to Ripper?...

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

perhaps conscientious objectors

 

What do you mean perhaps? Are you wanting to give a gun to someone who refuses to fight, and stick them on the front lines? That's a death sentence, and a weak link in a team that can't afford any.

[Guest MikeSC]

perhaps conscientious objectors

 

What do you mean perhaps? Are you wanting to give a gun to someone who refuses to fight, and stick them on the front lines? That's a death sentence, and a weak link in a team that can't afford any.

Not really, Agent. Stick a gun in their hands and place them on the frontlines and, whether the person likes it or not, they'll HAVE to fight as, well, the enemies won't be choosy as to who does and does not want to be there.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

The draft is a straw man. It's not going to happen.

 

Even the bills that had been circulated recently, which caused the recent panty-twisting from people like Moore, would not necessarily require *military* service, even assuming that those bills were passed. Which they wouldn’t be.

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

Now, where was I? Oh, yeah. Drafting black kids.

 

Say, whatever happened to Ripper?...

heh heh

 

Isn't it fair to assume that any possible draft discussion would come after the election, regardless of who wins it?

[Guest MikeSC]

The draft is a straw man. It's not going to happen.

 

Even the bills that had been circulated recently, which caused the recent panty-twisting from people like Moore, would not necessarily require *military* service, even assuming that those bills were passed. Which they wouldn’t be.

Hell, aren't Democrats the ones proposing these bills?

-=Mike

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Stick a gun in their hands and place them on the frontlines and, whether the person likes it or not, they'll HAVE to fight

 

I dunno man. If I were a soldier, I'd sure as hell want to know that the other soldiers with me were going to fight, and not turn tail and run at the first opportunity.

 

Or get shot and killed easily because they have no fucking clue what they're doing.

 

As Agent said, they're just weak links, and I think they'd probably hinder as much as they'd help.

[2GOLD 0]

You know, they could do the draft. Only they DISGUISE it as something fun and exciting.

 

Get Mike Trico, Mel Kiper and a few others to sit there and then you have the head of the defense department come up and announce the names of those drafted into war. Maybe give them a Army t-shirt with a number on the back and a hat. Have Stuart Scott interview them after they are picked.

 

Every once and a while flash to like some rich college boy in Maine, sitting there with his family looking disappointed that he didn't get picked first.

 

You know, make it enjoyable.

[Guest MikeSC]

Stick a gun in their hands and place them on the frontlines and, whether the person likes it or not, they'll HAVE to fight

 

I dunno man. If I were a soldier, I'd sure as hell want to know that the other soldiers with me were going to fight, and not turn tail and run at the first opportunity.

 

Or get shot and killed easily because they have no fucking clue what they're doing.

 

As Agent said, they're just weak links, and I think they'd probably hinder as much as they'd help.

Maniac, look at the situation.

 

People IN FRONT of you have guns.

 

Of EQUAL importance is that people BEHIND you have guns, too.

 

People can fight remarkably well when they have no options.

-=Mike

[The Metal Maniac 0]

People can fight remarkably well when they have no options.

 

They can also panic and freak out, causing problems amoungst their own troops, which is the last thing you need in a battle - your own troops causing you trouble.

 

I'm not saying every single person who doesn't want to fight would do such a thing, but I can very easily see how forcing people to fight would cause problems both with the person being forced, and with all the other soldiers who are there of their own free will. As I said before, I can't imagine that soldiers would be happy knowing that their teammates would rather be anywhere else then there, and could very possibly run at the first chance.

 

Essentially, I think that such people would be soldiers that CANNOT be counted on to not frig things up or die in a hurry, and I'm sure no commander would be happy knowing that only some of his men can be trusted to do their jobs properly.

[Guest MikeSC]

People can fight remarkably well when they have no options.

 

They can also panic and freak out, causing problems amoungst their own troops, which is the last thing you need in a battle - your own troops causing you trouble.

 

I'm not saying every single person who doesn't want to fight would do such a thing, but I can very easily see how forcing people to fight would cause problems both with the person being forced, and with all the other soldiers who are there of their own free will. As I said before, I can't imagine that soldiers would be happy knowing that their teammates would rather be anywhere else then there, and could very possibly run at the first chance.

 

Essentially, I think that such people would be soldiers that CANNOT be counted on to not frig things up or die in a hurry, and I'm sure no commander would be happy knowing that only some of his men can be trusted to do their jobs properly.

That is why our military is the best out there. Our troops --- with a few pathetic exceptions --- want to be there and know what they're getting into. Few other countries have that kind of a military.

-=Mike

...Hell, as a bonus, our military is actually full of quite intelligent people...

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Our troops --- with a few pathetic exceptions --- want to be there and know what they're getting into.

 

Exactly - I figure a smaller number of well-trained troops who want to be there beats out a bunch of guys who're given guns and tossed in the front lines any day of the week.

 

My point? Better to ask people if they want in then force them.

[Guest MikeSC]

Our troops --- with a few pathetic exceptions --- want to be there and know what they're getting into.

 

Exactly - I figure a smaller number of well-trained troops who want to be there beats out a bunch of guys who're given guns and tossed in the front lines any day of the week.

 

My point? Better to ask people if they want in then force them.

Well, the draft isn't really an issue. It's not a serious consideration at all.

-=Mike

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Yeah, I didn't really think it would be.

 

I was more or less just responding to what you said, more then the idea of a draft.

[Guest Hero to all Children]

KKK I admire your work on the field of not-taking-things-seriously which I also play on a lot (just soccer instead of football, yanno) so please don't believe that I took your comment seriously, I was just being a killjoy.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

It's all good. Sometime I wonder if there should some sort of "Meet the posters" thread for new people just to warn them about things like avoiding arguing with Slapnuts about the Middle East or never trying to get the last word on MikeSC, etc...

[Jingus 0]

On the issue of draft-quality troops, if you were a soldier, which would you prefer to hear from the guy next to you in the trench?

 

"I volunteered for the army because I wanted to serve my country and defend our freedoms"

 

...or...

 

"Hey man, I'm just here because they said they'd throw me in jail if I didn't come."

 

I sure as hell wouldn't want the second guy backing me up in combat. He'd be likely to piss himself and then promptly blow his own foot off when the shooting started.

[Guest Cerebus]

Precisely what J*ngus said. I can tell you that I would NOT have wanted anyone under my command who didn't want to be there, and I wasn't even in a combat situation.

 

In a combat situation you are not just a team, you are a unit. Weak links don't belong there, weak links help fuck up missions, weak links get people killed.

 

A draft will throw in idiots who don't want to be in the military into those units. They will be weak links. They will help fuck up missions. They will get people killed. If you don't think that's true, you don't know a damn thing about military tactics.

[2GOLD 0]

We don't just hand them a gun and say, "Get out there."

They do get trained and trained hard before becoming combat ready.

 

No one should WANT to be in a trench or in a war. No one really says to themselves as a kid, "Hey, I want to be in the army when I grow up."

 

Most of those in the army are in it for the college funds, not because it was the right thing to do. But they are trained to become soldiers. Same thing with those drafted. The number of those who decided to join because it was the right thing to do is a very low number. Hell some are in because it was the only option they had left.

 

Vietnam (horrible example I know) didn't run into the problem of bad soldiers, it had the problem of horrid and blind leadership.

 

No one wants the draft because...well it's the damn draft. Not because we'll end up with an highly inexperienced army. They will be trained for the situations, just like the soldiers currently there. You have no real proof that those who have been in the army for a long time won't panic and shoot their foot off either. It just depends what kind of person they are inside when faced with danger.

[Guest Cerebus]

I say this without malice, but you are wrong. Very wrong.

 

We don't just hand them a gun and say, "Get out there."

They do get trained and trained hard before becoming combat ready.

 

They get trained hard now yes. Like everything else, BT is based on around an all-volunteer force. Without a doubt, it would have to become dumbed-down for a larger less motivated recruit pool. What is now considered "combat ready" will have to be less strenuous since the bar will be lowered considerably.

 

No one should WANT to be in a trench or in a war. No one really says to themselves as a kid, "Hey, I want to be in the army when I grow up."

 

I did. My brother in law did. A great majority of my friends in the military did. One has to see the number of people who are "military brats" to see how much this holds water. The fact is, we have 1.5 million people in the military. To say that you think that none of them "want" (I think willing is what you really mean) to be in a war is downright silly.

 

Most of those in the army are in it for the college funds, not because it was the right thing to do. But they are trained to become soldiers. Same thing with those drafted. The number of those who decided to join because it was the right thing to do is a very low number. Hell some are in because it was the only option they had left.

 

It's true that few people have ONE reason to join the military. But your contention that we are all in the military "because of the college money dood" is pretty silly as well. The vast majority of military personell know very well what they are doing when they sign that paper (and to the few that aren't, well TS). The fact is, there are easier ways to get money for college than risking getting shot at. College money is a factor, but not the only one by far. This is especially true with the current GWOT, the chance of getting deployed to a "hot" area is very very real.

 

Vietnam (horrible example I know) didn't run into the problem of bad soldiers, it had the problem of horrid and blind leadership.

 

Vietnam is a good example, actually, but a good example why you are wrong. Because of the two year committment, soldiers would only have one tour of duty leaving units with inexperienced soldiers and also led to a breakdown in unit cohesion and morale. Also, the average Vietnam grunt would barely compare to the average grunt in Iraq now, not only because of a higher reliance on high tech weaponary but also because everyone is there BY CHOICE.

 

No one wants the draft because...well it's the damn draft. Not because we'll end up with an highly inexperienced army. They will be trained for the situations, just like the soldiers currently there. You have no real proof that those who have been in the army for a long time won't panic and shoot their foot off either. It just depends what kind of person they are inside when faced with danger.

 

I agree with your first point wholeheartedly. Soldiers are human beings of course. They panic, they can crack, they make mistakes. The fact is, a highly motivated better trained soldier who joined by thier own free will is going to be more effective than a person who was forced to be there with less training and poorer equipment even if there are more of the latter. As for "evidence" I don't have numbers about soldiers who "panic and shoot their foot off" but take a look at how quickly our all volunteer force decapitated Saddam's military twice . If it ain't broke...

 

P.S. The reasons why the actual occupation has not been nearly as successful as the "classic" military campaign to take out Saddam has nothing to do with this discussion so I'll leave it to the side.

[Guest Hero to all Children]

Basically I'm just echoing what Cerberus said because I got to this thread a few minutes too late (damnit.)

 

 

No one should WANT to be in a trench or in a war. No one really says to themselves as a kid, "Hey, I want to be in the army when I grow up."

 

But yeah, speak for yourself. Childhood dream.

 

And the one thing that actually says a lot about the draft and Vietnam were those people who said they were pracifists and simply not able to shoot someone. They were made unarmed field medics.

[Guest netslob]

i was never worried about the draft for a number of reasons:

 

A--i'm too out of shape to be considered for military service (one instance where being a big fat-ass comes in handy).

 

B--i'd most likely be considered a "Section 8"

 

C--i'm my mother's only son.

 

and if none of that worked, i'd just put on a dress and go to Canada.

[Guest Cerebus]

C--i'm my mother's only son.

I just wanted to point out that being an only male child (or only child) still means you must register for the draft, you be drafted, and you can serve in combat. The only thing you can get is a peacetime deferrment if there is a military death in the immidiete faimly.