The 1970 commission report assumed that the all-volunteer armed forces would attract 2 million to 3 million troops, with 40 percent of them—or 800,000 to 1.2 million of them—in the Army.
The real-life, present-day all-volunteer force consists of 1.4 million troops, 35 percent of them—or 489,000—in the Army.
Of course, in 1970, the Cold War was still on; NATO and Warsaw Pact troops faced each other along the East-West German border. Maybe a million soldiers are no longer necessary. Then again, in 2003, the Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, told Congress that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed to stabilize postwar Iraq.
In any case, regardless of scenarios, the all-volunteer forces and especially the all-volunteer Army are much smaller than the commissioners assumed they would be.
Size, of course, is not everything. In the past few years, I have asked many officers, of varying ranks, whether they would like to see the revival of a draft. Almost all of them have said they would not. Two captains that I asked recently gave succinct renditions of the most typical replies: "I'd rather be fighting with soldiers who want to be there," and "With a draft, there'd be too much riff-raff."
The latter response might surprise those, like Michael Moore and Rep. Charles Rangel, who claim the all-volunteer force draws mainly on poor, uneducated minorities. The stereotype was true in the first decade or so of the all-volunteer force, in the wake of Vietnam. But, according to official data, members of the armed forces today are better-educated than civilians in their age group; they score higher on aptitude tests; African-Americans are only slightly overrepresented in the enlisted ranks, and Hispanics are underrepresented. (For some details, click here.)
Still, if political leaders want to send the troops to solve a vast range of the world's problems—if they want a military that's far-flung, deployed on many fronts, and fighting in multiple theaters—then, at some point, numbers do matter. Or, rather, numbers and missions matter. If we want to maintain all these military missions, then the numbers have to go up. If we don't want to do everything necessary to push the numbers up, then the missions have to be cut back.
So, should we continue to send troops overseas to fight wars, keep peace, settle conflicts, impose order, and build nations? How do we get the extra troops—pay them a lot more (and where do we get that money?), mobilize all the reserves, reactivate the draft?
Or should we handle international affairs in a different way, relying much more on military alliances and diplomacy—not because (or not just because) that's often regarded as preferable to unilateral military force, but simply because there is no practical alternative?
The authors of the 1970 commission report emphasized that if the standby draft is ever activated, it should not be ordered into effect by the president; rather, it should be authorized by Congress. Before such a momentous step is taken, the panelists wrote, there must first be a "public discussion."
It's getting very near time for that public discussion now.
Fred Kaplan is Slate's "War Stories" columnist and author of 1959: The Year Everything Changed. He can be reached at . Photograph of military recruiting station and photograph on Slate's home page of a U.S. soldier in Iraq by Chris Hondros/Getty Images.
Remarks from the Fray:
Has anyone floated the idea of mandatory immediate-post-high-school service for all Americans with a choice between civil service and military service? Presumably most folks would opt for civil rather than military service. In such case, perhaps a shorter military obligation -- say 2-3 years -- and [3-4] years for civil service. Might be nice if all Americans got used to the idea of actually giving something back to the country rather than simply striving to make the most of the opportunities afforded them by living in this country.
--thefourstones
(To reply, click here.)
The argument that "everyone should serve his [and her?] country" is predicated on an imperial government to which citizens must be subservient. If we view government as the servant of the people and their will, the concept is nonsensical. "Serving the country" is a euphemism for subjecting the people to will of the state, the sovereign, and the moneyed interests that control it.
--grumpyoldman
(To reply, click here.)
If the nation wanted more troops, it would be far better to raise taxes, and use the money to increase troop salaries. As high taxes reduce the value of civilian jobs, young workers will flee the labor market for the coveted high-paying military jobs. McDonald's and Wal-Mart might go out of business, but the military would have no shortage of young men braving boot camp for the sweet paycheck than they don't have to acquire college debt to attain.
It would be far more ethical to raise troop pay, than to force people to join up and take whatever salary some jackass in congress arbitrarily sets it to.
--Madai
(To reply, click here.)
I remember back, oh I suppose it was 1998 or 1999. There was still some speculation about who the major parties' candidates for President would be. A fellow from Tennessee who used to be part of a group that I chatted with on Prodigy was a staunch conservative. Said he kinda liked that George W. Bush fellow down in Texas. He liked the sound of "compassionate conservatism." I remember, too, that this fellow, whose nickname on Prodigy was Max, wasn't very happy with Bill Clinton. Something about having our military all over the goddamned place and spreading it out too thinly, leaving us at risk.
Prodigy disbanded not long after that, unwilling to compete with AOL in the free mailer assault on our great nation. I haven't heard from Max in quite a long while. Not since 9/11 I'm pretty sure.
But I've wondered often what Max thinks now, about that George W. Bush fellow from down in Texas. It seems to me that it's the Maxes of the world who should be the most angry. We were all lied to, but they believed it.
Our generals now tell Congress that our military can not handle one more significant conventional threat. Putting aside the fact that this public confession cuts far closer to the bone of national security than any FISA court secret opinion ever could, the confession scares the daylights out of me. It's much worse than Max from Prodigy thinking that a few NATO jets in Bosnia stretched us a tad thin.
--RonB52
(To reply, click here.)
How can the most powerful army in the world be buckling under the occupational duties in a medium-sized nation? Because the army's superiority has been based around technology, not manpower, since the cold war.
Invading Iraq and defeating the Iraqi army went near-flawlessly. This is what our army is supposed to do - get in on a moment's notice, blow things up, and eliminate the enemy force. But that phase of the war ended years ago, and we have spent the vast majority of the time in Iraq playing policeman. Whether or not maintaining order among local militias and guerrilla warriors is even possible today is a debatable point - however, it is certainly a task that our army does not have the manpower for.
I'm not in favor of a draft or becoming isolationist simply because we can't maintain order around the world on our own. I think the best formula is one that goes like this: if we have to go to war, the US military is the tip of the spear. If we have to engage in a long-drawn peacekeeping mission, we need to reach out to our allies to provide additional manpower and expertise.
This is what has worked in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. This should be how the US approaches future conflicts - define the mission, clear the path, and bring in our allies as stakeholders to support long-term reconstruction after the smoke clears. In a word, Lead.
--jwschmidt
(To reply, click here.)
(8/14)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Obama's Small Masterpiece of a Speech at Fort Hood
Can Death Row Convicts Have Whatever They Want for Their Last Meal?
Does Rupert Murdoch Really Hate Google?
The Crops That Are Secretly Terrible for the Planet
The Three Kinds of Liberals Who Could Bring Down the Health Care Bill
Short Sayings That Make Me Happy
Remarks from the Fray:
Has anyone floated the idea of mandatory immediate-post-high-school service for all Americans with a choice between civil service and military service? Presumably most folks would opt for civil rather than military service. In such case, perhaps a shorter military obligation -- say 2-3 years -- and [3-4] years for civil service. Might be nice if all Americans got used to the idea of actually giving something back to the country rather than simply striving to make the most of the opportunities afforded them by living in this country.
--thefourstones
(To reply, click here.)
The argument that "everyone should serve his [and her?] country" is predicated on an imperial government to which citizens must be subservient. If we view government as the servant of the people and their will, the concept is nonsensical. "Serving the country" is a euphemism for subjecting the people to will of the state, the sovereign, and the moneyed interests that control it.
--grumpyoldman
(To reply, click here.)
If the nation wanted more troops, it would be far better to raise taxes, and use the money to increase troop salaries. As high taxes reduce the value of civilian jobs, young workers will flee the labor market for the coveted high-paying military jobs. McDonald's and Wal-Mart might go out of business, but the military would have no shortage of young men braving boot camp for the sweet paycheck than they don't have to acquire college debt to attain.
It would be far more ethical to raise troop pay, than to force people to join up and take whatever salary some jackass in congress arbitrarily sets it to.
--Madai
(To reply, click here.)
I remember back, oh I suppose it was 1998 or 1999. There was still some speculation about who the major parties' candidates for President would be. A fellow from Tennessee who used to be part of a group that I chatted with on Prodigy was a staunch conservative. Said he kinda liked that George W. Bush fellow down in Texas. He liked the sound of "compassionate conservatism." I remember, too, that this fellow, whose nickname on Prodigy was Max, wasn't very happy with Bill Clinton. Something about having our military all over the goddamned place and spreading it out too thinly, leaving us at risk.
Prodigy disbanded not long after that, unwilling to compete with AOL in the free mailer assault on our great nation. I haven't heard from Max in quite a long while. Not since 9/11 I'm pretty sure.
But I've wondered often what Max thinks now, about that George W. Bush fellow from down in Texas. It seems to me that it's the Maxes of the world who should be the most angry. We were all lied to, but they believed it.
Our generals now tell Congress that our military can not handle one more significant conventional threat. Putting aside the fact that this public confession cuts far closer to the bone of national security than any FISA court secret opinion ever could, the confession scares the daylights out of me. It's much worse than Max from Prodigy thinking that a few NATO jets in Bosnia stretched us a tad thin.
--RonB52
(To reply, click here.)
How can the most powerful army in the world be buckling under the occupational duties in a medium-sized nation? Because the army's superiority has been based around technology, not manpower, since the cold war.
Invading Iraq and defeating the Iraqi army went near-flawlessly. This is what our army is supposed to do - get in on a moment's notice, blow things up, and eliminate the enemy force. But that phase of the war ended years ago, and we have spent the vast majority of the time in Iraq playing policeman. Whether or not maintaining order among local militias and guerrilla warriors is even possible today is a debatable point - however, it is certainly a task that our army does not have the manpower for.
I'm not in favor of a draft or becoming isolationist simply because we can't maintain order around the world on our own. I think the best formula is one that goes like this: if we have to go to war, the US military is the tip of the spear. If we have to engage in a long-drawn peacekeeping mission, we need to reach out to our allies to provide additional manpower and expertise.
This is what has worked in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. This should be how the US approaches future conflicts - define the mission, clear the path, and bring in our allies as stakeholders to support long-term reconstruction after the smoke clears. In a word, Lead.
--jwschmidt
(To reply, click here.)
(8/14)