Mandatory Military Service

[tatertot]

Both the Army and the Airforce failed to meet their recruitment quotas this year, and there has been talk that perhaps the USA should have mandatory military service like many other countries, i.e. Isreal. While I can't see that happening, I'm interested to know what other people think.

------------------
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." Albert Einstein

[andros]

No chance. If there were a major war being waged, one with a clear-cut bad guy, and we desperately needed soldiers, maybe. That's what Selective Service is for. But without an enemy, there's no chance of such a proposal being taken seriously.

-andros-

------------------
"Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner

[Boris B]

I'm not sure what we would do with that many recruits. Germany ran into a problem with downsizing its military a couple of years ago. They were faced with a choice of:

(a) Reducing the amount of time conscripts were required to serve; this would increase the ratio of time spent as a rookie to time spent as a trained soldier. Not very efficient to train people up real good and then discharge them.

(b) Using a lottery. Lotteries, as they should be, are designed to be random and arbitrary. This is fair in some ways, but in other ways it's just mindless - and it seems especially unfair to the people who don't want to join up.

(c) Keeping all the recruits in, finding jobs for them, and paying more for defense than necessary.

(d) Moving to an all-volunteer force.

I don't remember what they picked (I don't think it was (d)). The point is, large-scale conscription makes it hard to "fine tune" the number of recruits you get, and when you have a fixed amount of expensive equipment (x number of missiles, x number of tanks), you really need to fine tune.

Plus, I don't like the draft because I don't like involuntary servitude. I also hold on to the objectively incorrect view that conscription is prohibited by the 13th Amendment.

[tatertot]

Andros - I agree, I doubt we'll ever have mandatory military service in the USA. But something does need to be done if the USA wants to continue involving itself in the problems of other nations (but that is another Great Debate in itself), since the military has such a hard time recruiting and keeping troops.

Boris B - Great Points! I remember after the Cold War, the US Army had to get rid of a lot of troops and it was, to put it bluntly, a big mess. Basically, they had to pay a lot of people to get out early. Then this Kosovo thing comes along, and now it's looking like downsizing wasn't such a good thing after all.

So, if we're not going to make people join the military, how do we insure that enought people are joining/staying in? Should we rely more on the reserves? Offer enormous financial incentives? Hire a PR firm to make the military seem like a cool, happening place to be?

BTW, the reason I am so concerned about this topic, is my husband is in the military, and during the Kosovo Crisis we keenly felt the lack of trained troops. My husband was doing the jobs of at least three people, putting in 80+ workweeks all for the princely sum of about $1200 a month(after taxes). Needless to say, he will not be re-enlisting.


------------------
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." Albert Einstein

[David B]

All I can say is that the U.S. outlawed slavery a long time ago...

[Boris B]

How to keep enough people in the military? That is an excellent question. I don't have a great answer to it. The only (lame) answer I have, is that maybe we need to have fewer grounds to reject an applicant outright. Two examples:

(1) Three recent high school graduates I knew decided to join the Marines. They were all strapping healthy youths with decent grades; none of them had any convictions. The first was refused because he had lost consciousness too many times (three, I think) in skiing accidents (he was something of a "hot dog" on the slopes). The second was refused because he had too many automobile violations (he was something of a "lead foot"). The third didn't join because his friends weren't going to.

(2) I've heard that no one is allowed into the military if they take prescription drugs. It doesn't matter the drug; it could be anything from thorazine (a good reason to keep somebody out) to anti-acne medication (a bad reason to keep somebody out).

(3) The military has a pretty broad definition of "mental illness". Any therapy including family therapy might be used to keep you out. The horror story I heard, and it's just a rumor, is that someone was kept out of the service because his mother had pushed him into grief counselling when he was eight years old, after the death of his father.

No hot dogs, lead foots, pimple-faces, or people who work on family problems with a professional? I'm not sure how much of this is Pentagon policy and how much is some goofy recruiter. And how much is apocryphal. But surely there is some room to make recruiting more inclusive of imperfect people who would make good soldiers.

[Hello Again]

I heard that in germany that you can opt out of the mandatory Military service by opting into the amount of time in community service (working at old folks homes, doing literacy outreach etc.) Is this true?

Perhaps this was the solution to "too many conscripts"?

[tatertot]

There was an article about this in todays paper, you can go here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-10/05/085l-100599-idx.html
if you want to read it.

Boris B - As far as I know, the individual recruiter has some leeway whether to reject or accept an applicant. Sometimes they "counsel" an applicant to leave things off of their application that might get them rejected. The Marine Corps actually exceeded their recruitment/retention goals this year (by 2,673) so they probably can afford to be more picky.



------------------
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." Albert Einstein

[DSYoungEsq]

Conscription doesn't violate the 13th Amendment for the very obvious reason that there existed at the time an example of conscripted military strength and no indication the Amendment was intended to make that effort unconstitutional.

This isn't as silly as it sounds. There existed other examples of what could be conceived of as 'involuntary servitude' at the time of the Amendment, and they were held not to be precluded (e.g. the deprivation of rights suffered by seamen (Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 282, (1897)), the duty of serving on juries, the ability of a state to compel work on the roads without compensation (Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328), etc.). As the Supremes said in Butler:This Amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. [240 U.S. 328, 333] It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc. The great purpose in view was liberty under the protection of effective government, not the destruction of the latter by depriving it of essential powers. 240 U.S. 328, 333.

Unfortunately, the only case specifically dealing with the issue of the draft dealt with the subject summarily, stating, in essence, that the Court couldn't conceive of the theory by which conscription equated to involuntary servitude. Sometimes, the Supremes can be a bit of a pain...

What it comes down to is that the Court recognizes that the 13th Amendment was intended to prevent slavery, and unless the complained of behaviour smells like old-style slavery, it won't be barred by the amendment.

Which isn't to say it ought to be done...

[pldennison]

I was just talking about this with my father last night. He spent 28 years in the military and now works for the Red Cross at a director-level position.

He happened to remark that, in a time with a growing economy, and unemployment dropping ever lower, who on Earth wants to join the military as an enlisted person, when you might actually get called up? Very few people. That's why the services are having difficulty meeting their recruitment goals.

He says he thinks there should be 2 years of mandatory military service for all men and women. I think he was always disappointed that I didn't go to college on ROTC or something.

[LongHrn99]

The problem, as I see it, with a revived forced conscription like the one in place before the Vietnam War, is that the second a war breaks out, you're gonna see millions of college students (I'll wave to you guys from a protest) burning draft cards, starting riots, basically a replay of the late 60s. I am a pacifist, so why should I be forced to fight? Why should the will of the government (not the people) circumvent my personal convictions? What I really don't understand is the proposal (at least to the best of my knowledge) seems to show bipartisan support. Where did all the draft-dodging hippies in the Congress go? If the government wants to raise the amount of soldiers, they should make it look glamorous again. After learning about Korea and Vietnam, most people I know wouldn't want to consider joining any branch of the service.

------------------
"There are many sweeping generalizations that are always true" -Space Ghost

[Boris B]

I think any war that threatend national survival would generate plenty of volunteers. In the first months after Pearl Harbor there were far more young men lined up to join than the military could deal with. This is why I disagree that conscription is an "essential power" as the Supreme Court said, quoted by DSYoungEsq.

As LongHrn99 mentioned, many wars, like Vietnam, get very few volunteers. If this makes the leaders less likely to intervene militarily, that's fine with me. If they can't do it with a small professional army, maybe they shouldn't be doing it at all.

War is increasingly the province of professionals, willing (at least in theory) to fight pretty much anywhere. The reasons: (1) Ultra-tech military arms require professional levels of training; (2) Far-flung interventions in balance of power struggles don't justify conscription or attract masses of volunteers.

[Akatsukami]

Regardless of the OP's intent, isn't a miltia sytem being confused with conscription here?

------------------
"Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away."

[tracer]

tatertot wrote:

Hire a PR firm to make the military seem like a cool, happening place to be?

Isn't that what the U.S. has been doing for the last couple of decades?

Be all you can be! Aim high! The few, the proud! Get money for college! Take a ride on a nuclear submarine! Travel to exotic foreign lands, meet interesting people, and kill them!


------------------
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.

[Therealbubba]

The answer to the OP is, no. No politician in either party is going to start drafting our sons and daughters and stay in office very long.

Our lower enlisted soldiers with families are living in poverty. They're living in poverty thousands of miles away from home. Can anyone imagine anything worse? At the risk of being labeled a "throw money at it liberal", I suggest raising the standard of living for these men and women.

Doesn't the Air Force give recruits the oppertunity to earn an A.A. during their first enlistment? Why can't the other services do that? Why not bring back the old GI bill? Can Trett Lott find it in his heart to spend a little money improving base housing? I hate to sound overly simplistic, but we're talking about our national security here.

Therealbubba

[Surgoshan]

Mandatory service? Just try it. Train me to use a gun, and then I'll go AWOL and just you try and stop me. I don't believe in mandatory anything. If I had my way, the world would have a single, practically non-existent government, the only law would be don't mess with others, and everyone would follow that law and that would be that. Of course, some people are the moral equivalent of the lower intestine, so I would have a gun.

Do you see what I'm saying? Mandatory schmandatory. There are plenty of people out there who are willing to join the army and make a profession of it. And you can be sure that a middling-sized group of highly trained soldiers is going to be a hell of a lot more effective than a large group of not-so-trained soldiers, most of whome don't want to be there.

A veteran of any sort is always worth ten ten times his number in recruits. My brother was in the military (I have nothing against the military, it's just not my style, and don't EVER try to force me into anything) for a decade. He hurt his shoulder and knee doing what they wanted of him. Now he's a thirty year-old who, despite his excellent physique, is not what he was 10 years ago. He's neither as fit nor as healthy. If you put him in a gym with an 18 year old football player, he'd get the snot kicked out of him. But if you put them both in the woods at night with a knife, the world is out one quarterback.

Expertise and moral count for a lot. Would you rather be defended by an unhappy mob or a dedicated force?

[Dirty Devil]

I thought the military just went through a huge downsizing. Here in California, bases are closing all the time, and military pesonnel are flooding into the private sector. Did they close too many too fast? Did we really have too many troops just three years ago, but now we don't have enough? Seems strange to me (but not surprising, since we are talking about the government).

I'm Active duty Army (in case my screen name didn't make it obvious). I was in high school in the days when the draft had just ended & the all-volunteer force began. I'm also a parent of an 18 yo college freshman (male).

There are a couple of factors that are making this (recruitment, retention) a major issue today.

1. Strong economy that provides lucrative alternatives.
2. Parents who grew up affected by Vietnam or with minimal exposure to the military who can't see the military as a good option for their kids.
3. Lack of a clear mission (the Cold War's over, isn't it?)
4. Paradoxically, considering #3, higher chance of getting sent to inhospitable areas (Honduras, Haiti, Colombia, Somalia, Saudi/Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, ?Chechnya, ?Taiwan) and being in harm's way.
5. Blurring of lines between officers & enlisted roles. To be promoted beyond E-6 (Staff Sergeant) you almost have to have a college degree. To make it to E-9 (Sergeant Major) or to O-4 (Major), you pretty much have to have a Master's degree. There are huge pay gaps between officer & enlisted ranks that don't reflect the current educational/experience requirements to progress in rank.
6. The gotta have a college degree mentality. Unfortunately, too many people see the service & attaining a college degree in a reasonable period of time as incompatible. There are actually a number of ways to do both, depending on your personal priorities.
7. Despite complaints of low pay, pay is dramatically better now for junior enlisted soldiers than in the draft era. What hurts recruitment worse than low pay is erosion of benefits. Retirement from the military after 20 years has been watered down significantly. Free lifetime medical care now costs $600/year + deductibles + co-pays for those lucky enough to still live near a military base that hasn't been closed. On getting out, you are barred from working for a military contractor for some time. If you take a government job, your military retirement pay is reduced (usually to nothing) based on your salary.

My recommendation is to offer a program structured like this:

1 summer spent at boot camp (before or after HS senior year) PLUS
1 summer spent at advanced individual training (learning a specialty) PLUS
1 6 month deployment to somewhere yucky (with advance warning).

in exchange for: pocket change while serving & $12,000 (off the top of my head number) for college.

Individuals choice during/after college to:

* Do another deployment for more money.
* Sign up for Reserves to continue earning $$$, but be at risk for future deployments.
* Convert (after deployment) to ROTC if selected.
* Get out after college with NO obligation (possible exception for all-out war)
* Enter active duty as E-4, with automatic promotion to E-5 in 1 year if no "demerits".

But no one's put me in charge, yet...



------------------
Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html (http://members.aol.com/majormd/index.html)

[furt]

I read an article in Harpers or Atl Monthly awhile ago that was essentially arguing for a return of the draft, but for societal, not military reasons. The author pointed out that the military, socio-economically and politically, is quite different from the general population. To wit: more minorities, lower on the economic scale, and much much more conservative politically.

I don't recall whether the author's research concluded that conservatives were more likely to serve, or whether military service made one more conservative. I suspect both are true. But I do recall him pointing out that the current military, especially the officer corps, is overwhelmingly of one political party (Republican); and that moreover this has never been the case before.

The author argued that draftee service acted as a societal glue; think of the classic Hollywood war movie with the farm boy, the Brooklyn Italian, the Jew, etc. all in the same foxhole. There was a great deal of reality to that, and it takes little imagination to imagine how military service, even without combat, breeds mutual respect.
Again, our military today isn't much like that.

I think we're a long way from the point where the army refuses to obey orders because the commander-in-chief is a 'liberal pissant draft-dodger,' And I have a lot of regard for the professionalism of our military. But I think there are obvious dangers to societal cohesion in having some sort of informal division of labor, in which only those of a certain political bent are likelyserve in the military.


Beside all that, I'd consider the benefits of military service to the individuals who serve. Everybody I know who has been in the military, even the ones who hated it, will still tell you (with a little bit of prodding) that they came out better people because of it; more disciplined, more confident, better able to work in teams, etc. I think society would benefit greatly from more people having those skills and expereience.


I'm not sure I support a return to the draft, even a limited kind like the Major suggests above. But I absolutely don't think it's a crazy idea.

------------------
"It all started with marbles in school..."

[LongHrn99]

I have to disagree with the Major, where in the HELL does the Constitution say I owe the government anything other than taxes? All-volunteer is the way to go. As stated by someone else earlier, give me a gun and show me how to use it, I'm gonna go AWOL. While that may seem like a good idea to someone who chooses to serve in the military, to me that's a year of my life wasted. Wasted because I'm not free. I cannot make my own decisions, I can't choose my job (other than my specialty, I'm still a slave IMHO), I can't choose the housing that I live in, I can't choose what country (or state) I live in, and 6 of those months are spent in a crap-hole!! Seems to me with a system like that you're just begging people to draft-dodge. You want to make it look GOOD not SHITTY.

------------------
"There are many sweeping generalizations that are always true" -Space Ghost

[DSYoungEsq]

ah, yes, more examples of civil behaviour that show that the people of this country understand self-sacrifice to ensure the common good... < eyeroll >

And they wonder why they can't get taxes increased as needed in California...

[tatertot]

DSYoungESQ wrote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ah, yes, more examples of civil behaviour that show that the people of this country understand self-sacrifice to ensure the common good...

Amen! I couldn't agree with you more.



------------------
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." Albert Einstein

In response to:

I'm not sure I support a return to the draft, even a limited kind like the Major suggests above. But I absolutely don't think it's a crazy idea.
-Furt

and:

I have to disagree with the Major, where in the HELL does the Constitution say I owe the government anything other than taxes? All-volunteer is the way to go.
- Longhrn99


I would simply point out that NO WHERE did I say this was to be any kind of mandatory program!

I said:

My recommendation is to offer a program structured like this:


Now, I didn't add that maybe some of the federal $$$ given to other scholarship programs could be used to help fund this program. But that's why the military is subject to civilian oversight...



------------------
Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html (http://members.aol.com/majormd/index.html)

Furt said:

The author pointed out that the military, socio-economically and politically, is quite different from the general population. To wit: more minorities, lower on the economic scale, and much much more conservative politically.

You left out more males, more Mormons & Roman Catholics, disproportionately high numbers of recruits from rural & inner-city backgrounds, and high representation from the Southeast, and low representation from the Northeast.


::snip::
The author argued that draftee service acted as a societal glue; think of the classic Hollywood war movie with the farm boy, the Brooklyn Italian, the Jew, etc. all in the same foxhole. There was a great deal of reality to that, and it takes little imagination to imagine how military service, even without combat, breeds mutual respect.
Again, our military today isn't much like that.


I disagree here with you. Yes, the WW2 movies may portray units as mini-melting pots; the truth is that in WW2, most units were made up predominantly of kids from one area. The idea was that peer pressure & personal sacrifice for the good of the unit would be stronger if you were fighting alongside lifelong buddies. (and, more cynically, people you'd have to face every day if you ever did make it back to your hometown).

During Vietnam, one of the networks produced a program called "Same Mud Same Blood" that showed how bonding that occurred between white & blacks soldiers in their units was having a profound effect on racial attitudes, and was carrying over into the civilian workplace when veterans left the service.

The military is not perfect today in it's treatment of minorities. But it is still far ahead of most private sector companies in how far an inner-city minority kid with a HS diploma can go with a little motivation & discipline. In fact, one of the key reasons why minority soldiers stay in the military is that they do not want their kids raised in the environment in which they grew up. The military today offers religious services for Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and even Wiccans. Special MREs are available for Muslim & Kosher adherants. I think your implication that the military lacks diversity is way off base. Tolerance & mutual respect in the military for other cultures is higher, on average, than in the civilian world.

What is missing in the enlisted ranks is suburban middle-class white kids who pursue other options, or if they do pursue a military career, make up the bulk of the officer corps.

What is missing from the officer corps is minority kids with the HS achievements to get into an academy or qualify for a ROTC scholarship. Due to affirmative action programs, these kids usually get very nice scholarship offers with much fewer strings attached & pursue these alternatives.



------------------
Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html (http://members.aol.com/majormd/index.html)

[LongHrn99]

Sorry, misread the post. But would that be the best way for volunteers to come up? And what is the amount of time required for an enlisted man? I would have to say that a year DOES let the enlisted man get the feel and see if he likes it or not.

------------------
"There are many sweeping generalizations that are always true" -Space Ghost

[handy]

My friend who immigrated from Mexico was required to sign up for the draft as part of citizenship.....

Also, if your brother got drafted, you didn't have to join. they never put all the brothers in the forces anymore.

[Monty]

Boris B
Member posted 10-06-1999 11:27 AM
How to keep enough people in the military? That is an excellent question. I don't have a great answer to it. The only (lame) answer I have, is that maybe we need to have fewer grounds to reject an applicant outright.

As shown by the rest of your posting, your answer is, indeed, lame.

Two examples:
(1) Three recent high school graduates I knew decided to join the Marines. They were all strapping healthy youths with decent grades; none of them had any convictions. The first was refused because he had lost consciousness too many times (three, I think) in skiing accidents (he was something of a "hot dog" on the slopes).

Then he wasn't healthy; now, was he? Think a moment about those of us who serve on ships at sea. Would you like to entrust the lives of approximatley six thousand Sailors to a fire-fighting team whose members are susceptible to loss of consciousness? Unlike a fire-fighting team ashore, those at sea do not have the luxury of backing out of the building to regroup/get reinforements if their members succumb to injury during the fire-fighting. One fights the fire until it is out because failing to do so sinks the ship with all hands on board.

The second was refused because he had too many automobile violations (he was something of a "lead foot").

So he had an obvious problem with obeying the laws of the civilian world. Perhaps you may have heard this before, but the military is kind of strict about folks obeying rules and regulations.

The third didn't join because his friends weren't going to.

Obviously that was his own choice, not the military's. Don't blame the military because he backed out.

(2) I've heard that no one is allowed into the military if they take prescription drugs.

Then you heard wrong, or partially wrong. Certain drugs, such as narcotics, may be disqualifying for certain career fields within the military, but since the military routinely treats Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, and Coast Guardsman in military hospitals with the same drugs used by the civilian hospitals, I'm sure the person who told you this had another reason for disqualification.

It doesn't matter the drug; it could be anything from thorazine (a good reason to keep somebody out) to anti-acne medication (a bad reason to keep somebody out).

The taking of thorazine most likely wasn't the reason for disqualification, but the condition which necessitated the taking of such medication probably was that reason. Try not to confuse the effect with the cause.

(3) The military has a pretty broad definition of "mental illness".

Actually, the military used the definition used by the civilian medical world, not the definition used by the general civilian populace.

Any therapy including family therapy might be used to keep you out.

There's a law which prohibits those with domestic violence convictions from using firearms. Just in case you didn't know, the military, being an armed force, requires its members to use firearms on occasion, and the same military is subject to the laws of the United States of America. There are also certain other conditions (multiple personality disorder, for one) which can get one booted out of the military. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to sign somebody up when you know they'll be booted out, now does it?

The horror story I heard, and it's just a rumor, is that someone was kept out of the service because his mother had pushed him into grief counselling when he was eight years old, after the death of his father.

You call it a rumor, that means it's not a true story. See above about "another reason for disqualification."

No hot dogs,
Proven to be a false assertion.

lead foots,[quote]
Proven to be a false assertion.

[quote]pimple-faces,
Proven to be a false assertion.

or people who work on family problems with a professional?
Also proven to be a false assertion. An addendum: call up the nearest Navy base's Family Service Center and ask them what their function is. One part of that function is to assist military members and their family members with family problems and they have professionals on staff.

I'm not sure how much of this is Pentagon policy
Damn near none of it.

and how much is some goofy recruiter.
Damn near none of it as the recruiter is also subject to military regulations and can get punished for winging stuff.

And how much is apocryphal.
Damn near all of it as shown above.

But surely there is some room to make recruiting more inclusive of imperfect people who would make good soldiers.
Of course there is. The military routinely enlists folks with, shall we say, "spotty" records. What so many people fail to realize is that there's an entire spectrum of jobs within the military and some jobs require a certain type of legal, moral, and medical history to enter. Some other jobs don't have as much attraction as those, but that doesn't mean the prospective enlistee is automatically barred from the military, just from certain jobs. And, of course, certain legal histories (such as murder convictions) do bar one from the service.

Care to try again with facts?

[Monty]

Handy: all male citizens of the United States now, upon reaching 18, must register for the selective service. Once a person becomes a citizen, then he (since it doesn't apply to females) must register provided he's not over a certain age. I don't recall off-hand the date the law came into effect; however, my younger brother falls into the age group required to register. He's a bit unhappy about it because when he did want to join, he was unable to as he wasn't physically fit at that time.

[RoboDude]

I'm suprised nobody mentioned that the Constitution explicitly states that a military draft cannot be enacted during peacetime. Unless we have another war, there is no chance whatsoever of the government requiring anybody to serve in the military.

[Monty]

MajorMD: I really don't find any fault with the majority of your suggestions. However, the one about the automatic advancement to E5 is just scary. A Sergeant in the Army does not have the same responsibilities as a Petty Officer Second Class in the Navy although they're both serving in paygrade E5.

Perhaps a better suggestion would be to require one year (or more) of "National Defense Training" as a prerequisite to entering college. South Korea uses that method and their government seems to like it. Obviously a lot of folks aren't too thrilled with it but they are technically at war.

[Just Ed]

At the risk of sounding obtuse, a question relating to the OP: Is this a matter of an insufficiently staffed military or an unrealistic recrutiment quota? Or an under-developed military training program?

I understand the need for personnel during times of crisis (such as deployment in Kosovo), but it would seem there should be some planning regarding how many people are needed at what levels of expertise. Tatertot mentioned the lack of trained troops. Mandatory conscription wouldn't solve that problem unless the new recruits received training in the areas lacking.

We might need to take a closer look at the way in which the current volunteer force is trained and deployed, as well as the actual number of personnel required to maintain a peacetime force which is nevertheless ready for action when needed.



------------------
I know you understand what you heard me say, but what you don't understand is what I said is not necessarily what I meant.

Monty - in regards to your multi-part answer to Boris B (which I won't C&P due to length), the military DOES exclude many potential recruits for conditions, which if they occur AFTER enlisting, are treated with no harm to the career progression of the individual.

In regards to your concerns about the automatic progression to E-5:

1. Individuals would not have complete free choice about what service they entered, or what specialty they applied for. Many specialties simply take too long to train for a summer program to accomodate. It also shifts the cost/benefit ratio to the military for the longet training. I was mainly thinking in terms of basic ground troops carrying an M16, or cooks. (Two of the less popular options for enlistees) If you want high-tech training, join the military for a longer enlistment out of high school.

2. Realize that in order to qualify for the automatic promotion, an individual would have accumulated ~ 2 years of active duty (3 months boot camp, 3 months AIT, 6 months deployed, + 1 full continuous year on AD) AND have a college degree.

3. This was something I dreamt up on the spot at 11 at night. I'm not precluding a little tweaking here & there...




------------------
Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html (http://members.aol.com/majormd/index.html)

[Akatsukami]

RoboDude claims:I'm suprised nobody mentioned that the Constitution explicitly states that a military draft cannot be enacted during peacetime.
Probably that surprising omission is because the (U.S.) Constitution doesn't explicitly state that.

------------------
"Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away."

[furt]

Majormd: Sorry, I misread your post in re your proposal being voluntary.

I did not mention other areas in which the military is "skewed" because I was quoting the article. And yes, the military is diverse. But what I was getting at (and the WWII thing was sort of off the wall) was that in terms of ideology, beliefs, politics the military is rather homogenous.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I think (hope) that people like Longhorn, if drafted, might at some point learn about responsibility and sacrifice. Similarly, a redneck who serves next to a skinny Massachusetts liberal might decide that those he disagrees with politically might still love their country.

The problem with the whole theory is that the military does not exist as an arena for social experimentation; it has a job to do, and taking on people as "projects" would probably get in the way of that job.


------------------
"It all started with marbles in school..."

[tatertot]

In answer to LongHorn99's question, an enlisted person is required to serve between 2-4 years, depending on what sort of educational programs (GI Bill, Student Loan Repayment, ect.) and the amount of the enlistment bonus, if any, he/she recieves. For example, my husband recieved $10,000 for enlisting and will get $16,000 for college after he leaves the service (he had to pay $100 for a year towards this, not a bad investment,eh?) in return for four years of active service and four years of reserve time.

The services really do offer a lot to help you get your education. My husband also gets 75% of his college tuition paid, up to $3,500 p/year. He can take courses related to his job field (computer networks) absolutely free, including getting Microsoft certification. All of this is on top of the GI Bill.

Therealbubba mentioned quality of living, which is huge issue amongst servicemembers and their families. In a lot of areas, base housing is subpar and/or hard to get. Those living offpost do get housing allowance but the amount is usually not adequate. For example, when Johnny was in Basic Training he was paid $340 a month in housing allowance for me & our son. In Memphis, where I was living, might get you a two bedroom apartment, if you don't mind living in a boarded up shack between a crack house and the freeway. They do adjust this by area, but I've never heard anyone say that it was enough to actually cover rent and utilites which are free if you live onpost.

The single soldiers usually have to live in barracks, sharing a room. Sometimes that room has its own bathroom, often not. Their rooms are even inspected, on a regular basis, for cleanliness & contraband. No wonder so many of them get married, before they are ready, just to get out of the barracks.

Improving the quality of life, in my opinion, would definately improve recruitment/retention.


------------------
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." Albert Einstein

[tatertot]

Oops - I made a mistake, my husband paid $100 a per month for a year towards the GI Bill, not $100 for a year.

Quixotic wrote:

: Is this a matter of an insufficiently staffed military or an unrealistic recrutiment quota? Or an under-developed military training program?

I believe that the services are in the process of "rightsizing". It's actually kind of a personnel nightmare. They need so many privates in infantry, so many majors in engineering, ect. To a certain extent, the military can rely on Reservists when there's a crisis, but the reserves are low on people, too.




------------------
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." Albert Einstein

[Monty]

Majormd
Member posted 10-09-1999 02:08 PM
Monty - in regards to your multi-part answer to Boris B (which I won't C&P due to length), the military DOES exclude many potential recruits for conditions, which if they occur AFTER enlisting, are treated with no harm to the career progression of the individual.

That's exactly what I said, Major. What I was addressing was Boris' assertion that the military was excluding folks based on the treatment not the condition.

BTW: the Navy does have a semi-automatic advancement program to E5 for certain ratings, most of which are in the nuclear propulsion field: automatic advancement to PO3 upon completion of one portion of the training and then automatic advancement to PO2 upon reenlistment for a full six-years if serving onboard a sea-going vessel.

[Therealbubba]

To address Monty's concern with certain pre-existing conditions requiring perscriptions.

I have a MOS that is in high demand now, that I carried when I was in the army some 20 years ago. I worked with a reservist who was trying to get me to sign up in his unit. I told him about my thyroidectomy, which requires me to take levoxyl every day for the rest of my life, and I take a beta blocker to treat primary hypertension. I am in excellent health, my hypertension is under control, and out of curiosity, I asked him to ask his commander if they would take me. They wouldn't touch me with a ten foot pole, even though I still hold an MOS that's in high demand. The reasoning is simple, I will die within weeks without my levoxyl, and when at war, sometimes a pharmacy is not real handy.

A guy I went through boot camp with, way back in '78, had a real bad case of acne. He could not wear a protective gas mask on a battlefield with an adequate face seal with his condition. He was given a medical discharge the last week of basic training.

The point I make is if access is denied to a given perscription drug due to battlefield conditions, that will comprimise the unit's mission. The reserve unit denied me not because of my condition, because I was healthy. They didn't want me because I needed perscription medication to maintain my level of health. I can't think of any perscribed drug that wouldn't fit that scenerio.

Therealbubba

[TubaDiva]

I have to disagree with the Major, where in the HELL does the Constitution say I owe the government anything other than taxes?

Now this really bothers me.

I'm not normally a combative type -- I'm a lover, not a fighter :) -- but I can't help but point out that the freedom of each and every one of us was purchased with someone else's blood.

It has been thus through all our history.

I would hope that we would never be asked to fight to defend our country, our neighbors, our loved ones, but if and when that day comes, dear heart, I sure do hope your attitude is not the prevailing one, for if it is we are screwed, we are lost, we are defeated before it even begins.

You have full expectation of all the benefits of being a United States citizen, but are not willing to defend the nation or your fellow man? How incredibly selfish. I sure hope I don't live next door to you, you'd stand around and watch my house burn down, I guess.

Not to drag in outside topics, but this is exactly the kind of attitude Kitty Genovese's neighbors had -- they sat in their houses while she was murdered and simply listened to her death throes. These selfsame kind of people lived in Germany and watched their neighbors hauled off to death camps. Ain't nothing to be proud of, cousin.

your humble TubaDiva

PS I totally agree with Phil's Dad -- every American citizen should have to serve two years in some fashion - if not the military in some form of community service.

[Boris B]

MontyAs shown by the rest of your posting, your answer is, indeed, lame.

Interesting. I make a self-deprecating disclaimer, and you repeat it back to me. How clever.

Who said the "hot dog" was susceptible to loss of consciousness? He was a high-intensity skier in his teenage years, and he knocked himself senseless. The "leadfoot" had a problem obeying social laws as an immature 16-year-old. The Marines are supposed to instill discipline, and they do, in plenty of men who were immature as boys. Do you know any immature boys?

What does family therapy have to do with domestic violence and multiple personality disorder?

You call it a rumor, that means it's not a true story. Couldn't be bothered to pick up a dictionary, could you?

An addendum: call up the nearest Navy
base's Family Service Center and ask them what their function is. One part of that function is to assist military members and their family members with family problems and they have professionals on staff.

I wasn't criticizing military policy toward its members, I was (mildly) criticizing its attitudes toward potential recruits.

Care to try again with facts?

Absolutely not. I have dealt with people like you quite enough. You have clearly taken a dislike to me based on criticisms of the military I have heard, and chose to bring into the discussion. You have brought in no more facts than I have, instead choosing to defend your beloved military by deliberately misrepresenting what I have said. Fortunately, the military is not nearly so thin-skinned as you are. Sorry to have hurt your feelings.

[Boris B]

And TubaDiva delivers this thread the coup de grace by bringing up the Nazi Holocaust. R.I.P.

[TubaDiva]

No C&P -- but a comment on some of what just went on above me.

I will say this much: the service is much pickier than it used to be . . .but they want more than just cannon fodder these days too, and so they're more discriminating.

When I was in high school, I did well enough on the placement tests that I had recruiters camped out on my doorstep, literally. (Also, I played euphonium, apparently there was a desperate shortage of female euphonium players.) They promised me the sun, the moon, and the stars . . .my academic record was not particularly shining, but that didn't matter. . . I had very little to recommend me, really; I was your average 18 year old messed up kid. And Uncle Sam wanted me. BAD.

Today, that kid wouldn't get five seconds of any recruiters time, even if they are still short of euphoniums.

your humble TubaDiva
"And you win an all expense paid trip to Ft. Rucker, Alabama . . ."



------------------
43rd Law of Computing:Anything that can go wr {segmentation fault}

[TubaDiva]

Gee, Boris, what did I do to rate such a comment? And my name in bold, too, you must really love me.

I note that just before I said "death camps" I said "Not to bring in outside issues . . . " I was making a point. It's still okay to do that, I assume?

your humble TubaDiva
who still thinks mandatory service is a pretty good idea. (Now see, I'm back on topic!)




------------------
43rd Law of Computing:Anything that can go wr {segmentation fault}

[Monty]

No, Boris; you did not mekae a self-deprecationg remark. What you did was use the term "example" and then follow that with rumours. That is not example.

In short that is lies.

You don't like the way that comes across, then tough.

Yet it is still a fact that rumour is not example of fact.

[Monty]

BTW, Boris; just so's you know that I am familiar with a dictionary:

(From Merriam-Webster)[quote]ru*mor [1] (noun)

[Middle English rumour, from Middle French, from Latin rumor clamor, gossip; akin to Old English reon to lament, Sanskrit rauti he roars]

First appeared 14th Century

1 : talk or opinion widely disseminated with no discernible source

2 : a statement or report current without known authority for its truth

3 archaic : talk or report of a notable person or event

4 : a soft low indistinct sound : MURMUR[quote]

I invite your attention to the second definition.

[Monty]

Tatertot:

Some may consider this to be a matter of semantics, but your description of the "payments" involved for the Montgomery GI Bill is a bit off.

The way it works is that the Service member agrees to a monthly pay reduced by 100 dollars for one year. That's why it's considered to be non-contributory (the VEAP was a contributory program) and the Service member does not pay taxes on that $100 nor can he or she reclaim the cash as is possible under the VEAP if the Service member decides not to use the benefits.

Under VEAP, the taxes were on the entire base pay (plus other pays received) and then the Service member made a contribution. If the Service member decides not to use a benefit, the entire contribution is refunded without any taxation as the cash was already taxed.

[handy]

RoboDude, the Constitution says a lot of things, even if it doesn't say what you said,
there isn't much enforcement of what the Constitution says.

For example, someone called the cops on me for making too much noise. I ask the officer who called? The cops won't say. I say, 'but the Constitution [or whatever it is] says we have the right to confront our accuser!'
Cop,'No, we don't have to tell you who called.'

Try it yourself. You'd be surprised.

[Polycarp]

Handy....the right to confront is, IIRC, "in a court of law." Doesn't mean that because someone makes a complaint, the complainer is obliged to appear when and where the complained-against chooses to confront him, or even that the cops have to tell you who then and there.

On the other foot, there is a specific provision of the U.S. Code, and has been for numerous years, that makes it a crime to "withhold from a person a right secured to them by the Constitution." (Paging a lawyer for cite and more detail on this.)

[aaronp]

Soon after I completed by B.Sc. degree in Computer Science I was contacted by an Army recruiter. And even though I never considered the job of attacking minor nations in order to help increase wealth of corporate America to be a rewarding career, I've always had romantic ideas of defending my country's freedoms against invading, evil empires. Too many GI Joe episodes as a child I suppose. But, I decided to set up an appointment for the amusement at least.

Well after my initial visit with the Sgt., I've never thought much about joining the Army again. Even though I scored extremely high on their placement exams and was able to follow any of their career paths, I found the whole recruitment process ridiculous. Mainly my problem was with the 3-4 page health and conduct form I was required to file. Not only were the questions sometimes picky and irrelevant (Are you allergic to dust?, Have you ever had a broken bone?, Have you ever had consoling?), but I was informed that if I marked _any_ question as yes, I'd be ineligible. What really insulted me was the recruiter's persistence that I lie just to pass the screening. Talk about dishonorable conduct.

Then of course were the salaries, which were half as much as I'd get paid in the private sector for mediocre work.

To answer the original thought though, I think that some mandatory military service is a great idea, and I’m a Liberal, too. Of course I’d never accept any military service that required duty outside of the country or a non-defensive nature.

[Monty]

Aaron: if the recruiter did, in fact, insist you lie on the application for enlistment, then you should've reported him to the military authorities over him. Such insistence on the recruiter's part is a crime and is punishable as such.

[Rysdad]

:::inviting, nay, welcoming the flames that are sure to occur:::

I was in the Army during Viet Nam. My draft number was 18. I hated every putrid, fucking second of it.

With that said, I don't think a person should be able to vote until that person has completed two years of some type of national service.

What'd ya think, democracy is free? It was earned.

------------------
" &lt;--- My own personal quote. I call him Doug.

One radical idea would be to make it mandatory for anyone with aspirations of high office (High does not include state representatives/senators/etc. but would include governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, US senator or representative, Sec Defense/or any of the services, and of course PotUS/CinC, or VP).

Impractical, unenforceable, yes...but it would give these guys a little real world education & get them out of their frats, secret societies, etc for a little while.

We're actually going through a radical shift right noe from an era in which our political leaders had by & large served in WW2 because it was the honorable thing to do, and entering an era where most sons of the privileged class from whence come our leaders are protected from having to perticipate in the service, or if they do serve, doing service "lite" a la DQ.

What would make this even more crazy & unworkable in today's climate would be applying this same requirement to women entering the political arena...

But it's an interesting idea to kick around, all the same.


------------------
Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html (http://members.aol.com/majormd/index.html)

[tatertot]

I really don't have a problem with making military service mandatory. We've all benefited from being Americans and I feel obligated to give something back. My biggest concern is how to make such a system fair for everybody. I believe Boris B made the point that if we conscripted every young person we'd have far too many troops. A lottery might work, but it just feels too unfair. Mandatory community service is another option, but how would we pay for it? And how to prevent richer and better connected families from getting their children the best jobs? I believe this is a problem in the South Korean army. The conscripts with wealthy families (using bribes or influence) get the safer, cushier assignments while the poorer recruits get the dangerous and tedious jobs.

Also, I am not at all opposed to women doing their service, but how would we deal with young single mothers? Would they have to join, too? There are single parents in the military, but they are their by choice and it is very difficult to manage.

I bounced around the idea of making military service mandatory for receiving financial aid for college, but it too just doesn't feel fair. Under that plan, my husband would have had to serve and I would have been exempt. NOT very fair at all, I'd say.

In the end, it seems like the only answer is to make military service more attractive to both new recruits and those already enlisted. Better pay would help, along with better benefits and more respect from the civilian world.



------------------
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." Albert Einstein

[DSYoungEsq]

One radical idea would be to make it mandatory for anyone with aspirations of high office (High does not include state representatives/senators/etc. but would include governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, US senator or representative, Sec Defense/or any of the services, and of course PotUS/CinC, or VP).

In Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers, to be a citizen, one has to volunteer for 'federal service' which translates to service in the combined armed forces of the time. This gives you the right to vote, hold office, etc. There is some discussion in the novel of the rationale behind this idea.

[David B]

Tubadiva said:I would hope that we would never be asked to fight to defend our country, our neighbors, our loved ones, but if and when that day comes, dear heart, I sure do hope your attitude is not the prevailing one, for if it is we are screwed, we are lost, we are defeated before it even begins.In which case, maybe we deserve to lose.

Think about it. If enough people aren't willing to defend their country, then maybe the country isn't worth defending. If we have to take away freedom to fight for freedom, what are we really doing?I totally agree with Phil's Dad -- every American citizen should have to serve two years in some fashion - if not the military in some form of community service.Only if moderating the SDMB counts as community service (though sometimes I think it qualifies for hazardous duty pay).

Seriously, though, while some legal beagles have pointed out that the courts don't consider a draft to be slavery, I fail to see much difference. The government is going to take away my freedom for a couple years? Sorry, but I'd fight that just as much as I'd fight any other threat to freedom.

[Triskadecamus]

Here is an idea, on the matter of what to do with all those conscript soldiers, were we to return to the use of the draft, in peacetime.

The federal military could be organized to provide support for civilian emergency services. The training of recruits could be made a part of a coordinated emergency labor pool. The training needs of the military (which include mostly learning how to get a whole lot of people to a distant place in a short time) would be served with the same budget dollars as the implementation of federal emergency services.

Here is how it would work. Federal forces would maintain training facilities, as they do now, albeit much larger. The exclusively military aspects of such training would be unchanged. General training, such things as major force movements, building of temporary encampments, delivery of materials for such things, and the simple, but difficult skills of teamwork on a division sized scale, would be made into a civilian operation, under the direction of some civilian agency, such as FEMA.

Military intelligence (as a part of it’s training) would provide to this agency, immediate, and ongoing communication services, informing it of all disaster information on a worldwide scale. Federal emergency teams could be dispatched rapidly, operated more efficiently, and respond much more effectively. The cost would be huge. The benefit would be manifold. Our logistical expertise would be a tremendous benefit to the modern military need for rapid response and deployment of military forces, but the regular exercise of armed forces would not be needed as often. The relief of suffering would also provide a lot of public support of the presence of civilian logistic supports in many areas where our armed forces might not be welcome.

In the eventual case where military forces were needed, the infrastructure would already exist, and the pool of experienced operational personnel would exist as well. To pretend that the ability to defend ourselves in the military sense of large standing forces cannot occur is probably short sighted. To accept the ongoing support of an institution with no other purpose than preparing for war is not the only answer.



------------------
Tris

[Polycarp]

One minor cavil with DSYoung's post: those with the franchise in the Heinlein novel were veterans who had served their term after volunteering. But not necessarily military veterans. You volunteered for public service. The authorities, after testing, decided whether you were cannon fodder, Peace Corps material, or needed to be put through engineering school at public expense. If you volunteered, whatever you got assigned to, you did. You had the free choice to volunteer or not. But you had no choice afterwards, except to resign (at any time except during combat). The hitch was that if you resigned, you forfeited your chance at the franchise.

Was it a good idea? Pretty much, yes, for the reasons TubaDiva has already given for why patriotism implies military service. Did it have its faults? Certainly, and I can see posters lining up two deep to argue them. But on balance, it made sense.

[Monty]

Tris:

The military in the United STates does currently assist in civilian emergencies and certain law enforcement actions.

That is, if you consider the National Guard to be part of the military, as I do consider it and so does the law.

[Triskadecamus]

"The military in the United STates does currently assist in civilian emergencies and certain law enforcement actions"

The proposal I outlined is a bit more involved than the current involvement of the National Guard in local disaster relief. At the same time, involvement in law enforcement is an entirely different matter, one which I find alarming.

<p align="center">Tris</p>

[Monty]

Tis: I bet you're alarmed by the main mission of the United States Coast Guard, then.