It’s easy (relatively) to recruit soldiers in peacetime. Offer them some educational benefits and a steady paycheck, and you can fill your quota.
Seems to me that the situation in Iraq changes things, or it could if it morphs into a protracted guerilla conflict. I can imagine a lot of eighteen-year-olds who might otherwise be inclined to enlist taking a look at the growing casualty list in Iraq and thinking, “Hmm. You know, I could actually get shot. Maybe I’ll give college a try.”
Seems like Iraq could have a similar effect on re-enlistments. If we wind up staying there for 5 years or more, as some suggest, that would certainly carry past re-up time for current soldiers, no?
My questions and topics for debate:
Does anyone know if there is already an “Iraq effect”? How is recruiting going these days?
And supposing that recruiting does dry up, will we see a reinstatement of the draft? If not, how would we cope with a drop in enlistment? Are we in danger of getting stretched too thin to handle a drop in enlistment?
Thoughts?
(Note: This OP may just betray my ignorance of military enlistment terms. If so, please enlighten me. Can terms of service be extended indefinitely to prevent loss of personnel? If so, what effects would that have?)
I shouldn’t think that a draft would need to be reinstated, and perhaps you may consider the USM lucky that present economic stagnation has made the USM more attractive for a broader range of skill sets.
I would suspect, however, that the Reserves may pose a problem. My understanding has always been that large numbers signed up for the Reserves on the bet the trade off of time versus money and training would be positive. Given reliance on the Reserves for some currently dangerous and unpleasant tasks, for extended period, perhaps a problematic number of people may decide, nope, not a good payoff.
Funny you should mention the reserves, Collounsbury, Phil Carter at Intel Dump references a LA Times article on Rumsfeld’s plan to take a large number of specialties that are currently perfomed mainly by reservists over to active duty. The idea is that the military will be able to mobilize more quickly and stay mobilized longer than if logistics and support are handled by reservists. The downside is that it could potentially make the reserves irrelevant.
LA Times Story (Registration required) http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-071103military_lat,1,6720621.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Intel Dump Summary http://philcarter.blogspot.com/
I think that most conflicts that raise the profile of the military generally are good for recruiting. This assumes that the current dribble of casualties in Iraq remains at a level at or below the current level and we avoid a quagmire.
Reading the LA Times article more closely it seems to be that Rumsfeld wants to have the army able to mobilize within 15 days, which the Army says will mean making logistical, intelligence and other support units active duty (at great extra cost).
Rumsfeld also wants to transfer administrative duties currently performed by military personnel over to civilians to save costs, and to limit involuntary mobilizations of the reserves to 1 year in 6
Well, I seem to recall that Reserves are cheaper to carry on the books than active duty.
I believe that this implies a rather higher carrying cost for the present force structure, as well as fairly different recruiting and retention profile, no?
Look, there’s a major problem here. We have on the order of 200,000 reservists on active duty, a level which has more or less remained constant since 9-11. (For historical comparison, the US activated the reserves for federal duty something like five times during the entire Cold War.) A good number of these reservist deployments have been for a year - I am beginning to wonder if one reason the economy is stagnating is that we’ve been burdened with nearly a quarter-million temporarily unemployed people who are dressed in green or blue, as opposed to having them produce goods and services and likely making better money.
In short, you’ve got to be a dope to join the Guard or reserves at this moment, new Rumsfeld policy or no. As those signs in Iraq have said, “One weekend a month, my ass.”
So where does this all lead? More long deployments roughly mean more troops who would like to do something else. Since we are fully committed to a volunteer military, that means we have to offer better pay and bonuses for a military that is probably already the best compensated in the world (and justifiably so).
In response to the OP, we’re just going to have bigger defense budgets.
According to my neighbor, MSgt. Franklin French, NCOIC of AFlt, 363rd Recruiting Sqdn, recuriting has remained suprisingly level since September 11, 2001. There was an initial spike of individuals who wanted to enlist, but that has since petered off to the same levels as before 9-11.
In any case, IMHO, any putz who wants to enlist because of the benifits and is not willing to accept the risks shouldn’t enlist in peacetime or wartime. I don’t care how smart you are, how tough, or whatnot. I do not need a guy next to me who’s nursing ‘conscript syndrome’ and saying ‘My recruiter didn’t tell me I could get shot.’ If anyone was like that, they’re liable to get shot by their teammates if not just jacked up and sent home.
First, while I am sure the fine Sergeant with all the funny letters after his name is well placed to know his own situation (although whether he would, as a good salesman I hope he is cop to bad sales is another matter), it doesn’t answer the question in the aggregate. At some point I sincerely hope to see the day when people understand the difference between anectdote and data.
Second, as to the aspersion on the Reservists who signed up for the benefits etc., well whatever one may feel about them, if the reality is that this is an issue in the aggregate then one must address it on a policy basis. That does not include making allusions to individuals getting offed, if I understand the lingo properly.
The reality is that recriutment is a business proposition, a sale to be made, and for that it has to package some utility for the buyer - the recruit.
Now, one would expect that the large number of reservists on duty, and pulled away from job and so forth may have some impact on Reserve recruitment. If that is not the case, super, if it is, it is something that needs to be addressed.
One of the paradoxes of empire is that your society gets ever richer as the empire’s domination grows. Yet your need of working-class cannon fodder/grunts grows at an ever increasing rate. Thus, without poverty to escape from, the military’s ability to serve the empire (from within) is undermined. Two main choices;
Increase the imbalance between rich and poor in your own society, and/or
Use mercenaries wherever possible
For example, the British and Romans went route 2 as often as possible, and the US seems keen to follow wherever possible (for example the ‘Northern Alliance’).
Interestingly however, this is the first empire of the full-blown capitalist era so other angles come into play – for example, the way the US leveraged ‘friends’ with trade concessions and other deals, etc. in Gulf war 1 and bought Pakistan in the Afghan/Taliab war.
Counter to the above, one might note the great emphasis on patriotism in the US. While also a general characteristic of empires in their pomp, this also always aids recruitment regardless of social position – it becomes a ‘noble’ profession in these circumstances.