The Draft Debate Still Lies Ahead

[thedrifter]

06-26-2003

The Draft Debate Still Lies Ahead



By Ralph Omholt



Three decades after the creation of the All-Volunteer Force, a debate over the possible need to reinstate compulsory military service – the draft – has suddenly emerged.



This time, the issue is not from a threat of a major world war, which prompted the imposition of the universal military conscription in 1940. Rather, the U.S. military faces the threat of severe personnel shortages in the future as a result of declining morale from the mismanaged reserve mobilizations since 9/11, and continued betrayal of military veterans by the U.S. government over their health benefits.



As the nation prepares to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the All-Volunteer Force next Tuesday, July 1, it is relevant to explore what has gone wrong with this concept.



When the Nixon administration abolished the draft in 1973, the U.S. military was pulling troops out of Vietnam at a record rate. Morale was low, equipment aging and public support all but absent.



It is a testament to our military leaders of that time that the “All-Volunteer Force” was a success. With the active-duty force drastically reduced, and personnel policies such as the “up-or-out” concept in force, those who opted to remain on active duty and who succeeded typically possessed the military education, skills, experience and combat-honed judgment needed.



Many of those unable to find an active duty slot were able to find a National Guard or a Reserve unit in which to finish out their military careers. But over time, even those slots became unavailable, and many military people faced mandatory discharges. Today, there is little of the Vietnam experience and expertise to be found in the ranks.



During the late 1970s, the Pentagon required that Guard and Reserve components maintain nearly full active-duty performance levels to remain viable military assets. National Guard and Reserve members were factored as part of the ready assets. When the Gulf War started, Guard and Reserve units faced a new, post-Vietnam scenario: reservists were activated to serve in overseas combat – women included.



But the 1991 Gulf War also brought a sadly-recurring event in U.S. military history – the betrayal of veterans who were sickened by battlefield poisons. Gulf War Syndrome has attacked hundreds of thousands of active duty personnel and reservists, crippling without discrimination. As we have seen the VA for years denied the medical claims – without discrimination. It was as bad, if not worse, than the “Agent Orange” tragedy that struck many Vietnam veterans.



Today, loyal and dedicated Reservists and Guardsmen are suffering severe economic distress because of extended mobilization that has left their families with smaller payrolls, and in many cases, failed personal businesses.



Also today, returning reservists returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom are finding that technicalities in the law have allowed their civilian employers to deny them re-employment. According to an article by Jeff Johnson in

CNSNews.com on June 10, 2003, this has even occurred in the U.S. government's own Transportation Security Agency.



As a result, many experts are predicting a future recruiting and retention crisis in the Reserve Components. Likewise, many active-duty soldiers approaching their mandated discharge dates are now being held on active duty against their wishes. When those discharges are finally granted, the active duty exodus is likely to create a serious chink in America’s armor.



At the risk of sounding overly alarmist, I believe that resuming the draft will become inevitable in the next few years, despite the fact that the current DoD leadership is strongly opposed to such a move.



Even though “privatized” (and highly profitable) contract functions are supposed to eliminate many the active-duty personnel requirements, I predict that the Pentagon will.



Given Rumsfeld’s opposition to reviving the draft – and his strong political influence over military affairs in the Bush administration – it is doubtful that the issue of reviving the draft will become active for several years. But declining retention and an anticipated exodus of experienced personnel will revive the draft debate in time.



And complicating that debate will be the issue women in combat, already a major concern to some in the wake of Iraq. The basic training “experiments” of sexually integrated units and the unavoidable female physical strength shortfall have both put serious strains on military unit cohesion and combat effectiveness, but known demographic trends suggest the military will be hampered by those “special handling” requirements even in combat, given the fluidity of military battles that often thrusts supposedly rear-area non-combat soldiers into the fight.



With women constituting 52 percent of the U.S. population, and the overall cohort of 18-30-year-olds in decline, the drafting of women will be a “first-up” issue when the debate begins.



Despite the logic of equality, combat veterans are usually staunchly opposed to women in combat – just based on instinctive “civilized reflexes.” From my own military experience, I share that opposition. Beyond the privacy, hygiene and social issues, the emotional impact on the male psyche by a woman’s wounding, death or capture can have disastrous results on a unit’s performance in battle.



While the all-volunteer force remains an attractive concept, years of disjointed personnel priorities and a relentless operational tempo have seriously damaged its effectiveness. The key shortfall is found in the military’s obsession with hardware that has downplayed attention to more important human elements. Blinded by our current advantage against Third-World targets such as the Taliban and Iraq’s weakened military, our military commanders seem oblivious to inherent weaknesses that might lead to setbacks and defeat against a stronger foe.



America needs and deserves a military force that is indeed, second to none. The draft debate will come, and when it does we must all take part.



Ralph Omholt is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at skydrifter@attbi.com.


http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/c...9.733244234279


Sempers,

Roger

[btrogu]

Bring the draft back. I work for a school system in New Jersey and I see kids who could really use the milatary not as much as a discipline area,but just to get them on the right track. I would say about 60% of the kids in my school come from single family homes and have no goals set for themselves. I know some people just don't belong, but I feel it is your duty to your country.

ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU. ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY. JFK

[richgitz]

Part of me says, the Draft would help set some of the young
people today in the right direction. And the other part thinks,
what kind of Military would we have. We might be worse off.
But there's a lot of kids out there that need strighten out.
Then there's drugs. What % of the young people are trying
drugs, could they pass a medical to be accepted. Right now I
don't know, which way to think about, another draft.

[Sgt Sostand]

They should reinstate draft i think everyone should give at lease 2 or 3 years doing something military or some other form of government i think it would make a difference with our youth

[firstsgtmike]

I anticipate the return of the draft, in one form or another.

Item #1:

"Today, loyal and dedicated Reservists and Guardsmen are suffering severe economic distress because of extended mobilization that has left their families with smaller payrolls, and in many cases, failed personal businesses.

As a result, many experts are predicting a future recruiting and retention crisis in the Reserve Components."

I believe the reason one of the poolees is having difficulties in switching from Reserve to Active MAY be a sign of this problem developing.

Item #2.

"many active-duty soldiers approaching their mandated discharge dates are now being held on active duty against their wishes. When those discharges are finally granted, the active duty exodus is likely to create a serious chink in America’s armor."

(This also could be considered a form of "draft".)

In addition, many servicemen (yes, JC, and women) are reevaluating reenlistment and career options in light of their experience with extended deployments.

Depending on how much the retention rate suffers, AND IT WILL, the number of 1st termers must be increased dramatically to ensure enough careerists will evolve from them.

(i.e. IF 20% of first termers are required to reenlist in order to maintain force levels, and the actual rate drops to 10%, you need to double the number of 1st termers.)

FINALLY:

"declining retention and an anticipated exodus of experienced personnel will revive the draft debate in time."


I believe it is not a question of IF, but WHEN!

[Barrio_rat]

Here's a point that may help the military without bringing in a draft.

Personally, I don't think a free society should have a mandatory term in the military - perhaps a "required" two year "service" in some area such as the Peace Corps or other such organization OR in the military within 4 years of graduating high school or college. Just an Idea.

Okay, here's the point I was originally going to make. If they were to pay the people who serve in the military quality wages that would, at least, compare with their civilian counter parts they would probably gain more quality personell as well as be able to raise standards. Around 88 or 89 we had a General come around (about the time of the Safety Muster) and, among other things, informed us that from E-1 to O-10, the military needed/deserved a 30% pay raise to equal that of the civilian work force. When I was at my 5th year in I knew a SSgt with 14 years in who had decided to get out - because he could do better. Enjoying the Corps is one thing - taking care of yourself and your family is another. If these people were paid what they were worth - give bonuses to those who excell and, when possible, a choice of duty station that actually happens (provided that quotas are filled and with the understanding that "what is best for the Corps" comes first) there would be a much better military with many qualified applicants wanting in and staying in.

Just my thoughts.

Of course, the draft would cost less (on paper) and would create more government jobs that would pay better than what the military pays....

Semper Fi!

[Roberto T. Cast]

I take a different vanue. The draft should be implemented because maybe some or many of the students in high school will look forward to getting a training and a job for the future and the military will do that. This also could keep a lot of this kids out of the drug business. We have have a lot of kids on welfare especially girls who get pregnant and the father could care less. Long time ago, we used to have Gun Shot Weddings whether it was right or not. Society made us take responsiblity for our actions. Nowaday, have a kid with different girls and let the government take care of them. How can the father take care of the kid, even if he wanted, if not trained and working for meager wages. At least in military service, he or she will get training and if they don't like the military life, they can out and find a suitable job in civilian life. If they decide to joined the military or they are drafted, the lenght of service should be something suitable in order for them to be well trained so the transition to civilian life will be easier. I say no less than four years. Maybe six years. Who knows.

Maybe by requiring boys and girls to register for the service could in instill something call "PATRIOTISM".There should be no dodging the military because of religion , etc, etc. Everybody serve. If someone wants to go to OSC, let them finish their college education and then they have to join. If they are flunking in college, draft their asses into the military.This may sound harsh or tyranistical, but something must be done.

This nation needs to do something for our youth of today in order to bring them around and be more responsible. Too many kids in local jails and federal prisons.

[badbob]

When I enlisted in the Corps in early 1964 there was no draft.

The Vietnam War, or better stated, the poorly managed Vietnam War forced many experienced NICO’s and Officers to reevaluate their career choice. Many left the Corps early, myself included.

The Draft was necessary because of the Troop demand in Vietnam and the reactivation of many dissolved units, but the draft had a negative effect on the Corps.

The draft may very well be necessary for the Army, Navy and Air Force , but the Corps is an entirely different matter..

By nature the Corps is an elite military force, we maintain less than 190,000 personnel out of the 2.5 million total U.S. military.

To be a good marine you have to first want to be a Marine.

During the Vietnam War the first Marine Corps draftees actually chose the Corps once drafted. But by the late 60's the Corps was taking in more draftees than enlistees. This had a very negative effect on those who had enlisted.

My 1st tour in Nam was with an all volunteer group of Marines. I never encountered my 1st Marine draftee until I returned stateside.

My last year in the Corps I encountered many draftees who never wanted to be a Marine and hated the Corps and the government who had placed them there against their will.

By the late 60’s the Vietnam War was fought predominately by draftees, NCO’s had little respect from the lower ranks and moral went to the dumpster.

As a result, the Vietnam War went from being a Military Operation, to a game of survival and the draft played a major role in our ultimate demise in Vietnam.

By 1967 they had shaved 4 weeks off recruit training and began rubber stamping Marines every 8 weeks.

The Corps is all about tradition, motivation, overcoming hardship and the Pride of accomplishment. Being a Marine is a mind set, a physiology and you have to really want it to get it.

It’s just very hard to motivate anyone who did not make the choice. I would hate to see the Corps have to Draft again.

I don’t want to be misunderstood here, I’m not claiming that all Marine Corps draftees of the Vietnam era were not good Marines, a very many were. But there were many with attitudes that could not be altered by tradition and motivation., and they served to weaken not strengthen.


I would not promote the draft in order to save a few kids, however I agree that the draft can save some of the kids who would otherwise slip through the cracks of life.

The draft serves only one purpose, to make our military strong, But it also serves to weaken our military at the very same time.

Semper Fi,
Bob