Rather than Conscript, Why Not…..?

If we are the best military in the world, what happened to Korea, Vietnam,Somalia?

(No excuses please!) The only military mission properly executed recently is Kosovo and Bosnia Herzegovina.

The only systeme that really would work will be universal service. But the elite would buy that. Being rich and defending the country don't mix.

Or that policemen don’t turn in their badges just when the armed robber needs chasing?

Well they do in New Orleans.....

It is unspeakably vile to conscript someone to kill and risk death. But you find no moral problem with hiring people to do it? That's what a "volunteer" army is. Do you also think juries should be hired? Or do you think there is such a think as civic duty at all?

I'd like to add that polititians & generals might be less willing to engage in pointless suicide campaigns if they thought their troops could easily quit before deployment. It ultimately could result in a more efficient use of the troops overall.

I would think that any "you can quit any time you want" clause to military enlistment would be similar to those employed in business -- they require a certain length of notice like a few weeks or so. Quitting without that warning is then contractually punishable.

What it comes down to is the contract. If you signed something voluntarily that says "your contract can be extended indefinitely" then you need to convince your employer that's unfair or not sign it.

The suggestion is not unlike the system Heinlein described in Starship Troopers. Those soldiers were free (and in many cases encouraged) to quit at any time before a battle actually started. The theory being an extension of the prime purpose of an all-volunteer army, namely that if you aren't there voluntarily you're likely to get yourself and others killed, making the army less effective than a truly dedicated force. Of course, there was the extra reward of franchise is you served your term.

Is it workable? I don't have the experience to say, but it seems to me that if the only reason the people fighting with me are there is because they're afraid to be court-martialed, I might be a little worried. In Starship Troopers, while soldiers weren't punished for quitting, they were denied franchise, their main reason for joining the army in the first place. I think a quit-when-you-want policy could work, but only if the prize for completed service was truly compelling. I'm not sure such a prize is practical.

It certainly would be an interesting experiment to try such a thing on a small group within the army.

Tom,

Agreed. Calls for a draft are a politically motivated scare tactic. Nobody was calling for a draft before the war.

'Quit any time' combined with 'repay the government for training/equipment/housing/etc costs if you quit before X years are up' would seem like an equitable solution.

I remember hearing something to the effect that to train a pilot in the military costs about 250-500 thousand dollars. And such skills are valued in the private sector. Unless we think the government should be in the business of providing aviation welfare, there would need to be a contractual obligation on the part of the enlistee to compensate the government for obtaining training - either serve your full term, or get ready to pay up.

Perhaps such a voluntary military would reduce those willing to fight in conflicts that aren't related to the actual defense of the country, and perhaps military action will become less popular as an extension of unconstitutional foreign policy. Perhaps.

I realize this is somewhat now off the thread, since people are discussing Don's "alternative proposal" - but in terms of the first half of his post...

I think what people are downplaying here is that Bob Herbert isn't seriously calling for a military draft. He's trying to argue against the war - by rather graceless logic - that if the war "is worth fighting", the Administration would call for a draft: the fact that they don't is therefore proof that the war isn't worth fighting, and therefore we should withdraw.

As I say, it's dumb logic, and it's not very well written - but I think he'd be as appalled as anyone else if a draft was put in place.

It's the equivalent of me saying "if Bush really went to war to free people from a tyrant then he should invade Saudi Arabia, Burma, North Korea and Zimbabwe as soon as possible": He's just using a silly rhetorical device of saying "should" instead of "would", and it's not really worth getting worked up over.

Always an interesting question. As a former navy officer, naval academy grad, and GW-1 vet, I strongly oppose the draft in anything short of nationally desperate circumstances. Military life can be dangerous and difficult, but at least I knew everyone was there voluntarily; indeed that fact is an important management tool.

I wouldn't have wanted to be stuck with a bunch of incompetent malcontents with inappopriate attitudes -- who had a very good point that they should never have been there. Last I checked it's not the role of the govt to coerce individuals into any particular occupation.

(That said, I'm free to feel nothing but contempt for young men I run across who moan and whine about the "threat" of having to serve in the military during the great conflicts of this age. Wusses.)

But sorry, to extend that view to a full "right-to-quit-anytime" status is completely unworkable, and I suspect nearly anyone who's been in the military would understand that. People aren't robots: you face the full range of emotions, personality conflicts, homesickness, fear, family problems etc etc. If people could, they often would quit abruptly -- just as I've done from a couple of civilian jobs, but certainly didn't from the navy.

The penalty for that in the military could be death, mayhem, disastrous readiness, lost battles. Civilians often do not understand the amount of training, grooming, and experience it takes to be competent in war-fighting -- you can't just abruptly replace a pilot, an NCO, or a skilled specialist with a fresh recruit and keep going. Nor can replace these people with a counterpart from a "competing company", can you?

Ultimately, military service *IS* different from civilian business life in many ways, and this is one of those realities. But you know all that going in.

The issue is, could you set this up so there was a greater incentive for those who do stay in? Steeper pay charts, delay the more valuable schooling, etc? My signing bonus was not delivered until successful completion of two years of school, which was a good incentive not to fail out, but what is a few dollars incentive to someone whose next mission is viewed as likely to end in death? It's hardly comparable.

While Mr. Boudreaux's proposal is interesting, but it simply is not workable, for the reason Randy noted. You have to be able to put the military in situations that are far worse than cops or firefighters deal with, and know that they will stick to it. "Quitting" has to be seen as both dishonorable and practically impossible - which is how it is currently viewed by most enlisted personnel. The so-called "brotherhood" of those who serve together gets that name because you view your shipmate or platoon as practically permanent, like family. Like them or hate them, you know your fellows will be there - they cannot just quit and go home. Abandoning your mates makes as much sense as abandoning your family - it is only for the most upside-down of horrific situations. That is the only way a military can perform its ugly function.

Eddie, your argument seems very solid to me.

NathanB,

I fully realize that cops and firefighters know they could risk death. But the expected probability of death in any police or firefighting action is not very great - certainly far lower than that expected by Normandy soldiers or Okinawa marines or even those on frontlines of the modern Iraq battles.

The deaths at the WTC were certainly not expected, and I imagine rescue procedures have been altered to reduce firefighters' exposure.

Firefighters were ordered out of the second WTC tower after the first had fallen. Invading soldiers and marines are still sent in even when the first lines are decimated. The required level of commitment is not the same.

> firefighters aren’t known for quitting

> their jobs just before the hook’n’ladder


> takes off for the big blaze downtown? Or


> that policemen don’t turn in their badges


> just when the armed robber needs chasing?

Don't forget the mass quittings by the New Orleans police and fire in the face of hurricane Katrina.

I can't speak from experience, but I suspect Prof. Boudreaux can't either, so I feel free to speculate here.

Soldiers today can quit whenever they wish - at the cost of facing a court-martial and/or hiding and/or fleeing the country. Don's proposal would simply lower the cost. However, there is a good game-theoretic reason for imposing a high cost to desertion: as a soldier, you want to have a high degree of confidence that your fellow soldier will not abandon his post at a dangerous but vital moment, since his doing so will greatly increase your own peril. Thus, soldiers rationally desire to work only with other soldiers that are highly commited - and one way to signify that commitment is to accept a job with a high cost of quitting.

If soldiers could quit at any time without cost, then soldiers would be less confident in the dependability of each other - a fatal problem, and one that would ultimately reduce the numbers, reduce the quality, and increase the cost of the armed forces.

Spencer,

Yes there are some limiting factors, there always are. During Gulf I we stripped many of the CONUS bases of their CWDE. But to say we're weaker now than 2-3 years ago is an exaggeration at best. For one thing, and not a minor thing, you totally discount the tactical experience gained in the last couple of years. We have an army full of veterans. I'm not even convinced that the much reported recruiting problem is really a problem. A volunteer in today's environment is a volunteer who's gonna take that oath seriously.

Yes, Our military is the strongest in the world. But it is not nearly as strong as it was 2-3 years ago. Because this administration is not spending the money to replace the materials being consumed in Iraq, expecially the equipment the Guard units provided, the ability of the military is being depleted. This is the only war in history that the US military is weaker two-three years into the war then it was at the start of the war.

Bush has done more damage to the US Army then any American since Robert E. Lee.

"I don't think firefighters or police officers are ever sent into battle with the expectation that some will die."

No John, every street cop and firefighter knows that they could risk death, but they still show up for work.

An individual's opinion of the draft is a good proxy for their real opinion of freedom. Often times people are gung ho for freedom, truth, justice, and the American way, but they think a draft is fine in wartime. You also tend to hear things like "it would be great if every 20 year old HAD to serve their country".

The American Friends Service Committee provides this data about how many conscripts left their posts at the height of the Viet Nam War:

"Military Resisters - It is difficult to say how many military service members were prosecuted for offenses growing out of opposition to the Southeast Asia War. Most estimates consider the rates at which service members went AWOL (absent without leave) or deserted – commonly referred to as "absence offenses." AWOL and desertion rates hit an all-time high during the Vietnam War, 1971 and 1972 being the peak years. The Pentagon documents 1,500,000 instances of AWOL and desertion during the war. Official estimates of the actual number of service members who went AWOL or deserted run between 500,000 (Pentagon) and 550,000 (officials in the Ford Administration)."

http://tinyurl.com/d35vp

Is there any reason to think a voluntary but not committed military would be less prone to desertion? especially if desertion was not a crime?

The problem with the proposal is that the military has the unique property of being a very different job when there's a war than when there isn't. Huge numbers of people spend entire careers in the military without ever experiencing combat (not true of police, rescue, and fire personnel).

You don't want people signing up for the military who want the valuable training and may like the idea of 'playing' soldier, but wouldn't actually be willing to go into combat if that proved to be necessary.

I think it's true that very few of our current soldiers would have quit (hight re-enlistment rates show that clearly) but that may be only because those people who would quit were filtered out by the prospect of signing a contract that said that wasn't an option.

The rationalization for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is that allowing gays into the military would "disrupt morale and unit cohesion." But throwing in a bunch of unwilling conscripts poses no morale problem at all. Go figure.

The point about D-Day is really interesting. What would have happened to a soldier who decided he wasn't getting on the troop transport? Would he have been physically thrown on anyway? Would he have been court-martialed and executed? Imprisoned for life? Less?

If he wouldn't have been executed, I'd submit that allowing him to quit right away wouldn't have been much different from the system in place. A court martial isn't fun, I'm sure, but it's probably better than certain death by being the first one off the boat.

Most importantly, would soliders - given military culture - actually quit right on the eve of a battle even if they knew they'd die? If only self-preservation mattered, you might not have joined the military to begin with, no?

Just some questions, no answers.

- Adam

Why mess around with a system that works spectacularly well? The U.S. military right now is the best in the world by a huge margin. It's not just the equipment edge we have, but also the quality of personnel. Why should we even consider changing it?

I do agree that military volunteers possess the same courage as our firefighters and police officers. But is it valid to compare the two? In the first place, initial training investment per military employee is far greater than that for firefighters and police officers. Taxpayers have a right to demand a return on that investment.

Military leaders knowingly send troops into conflicts where deaths are certain to occur. Those troops are very aware that some will die. I don't think firefighters or police officers are ever sent into battle with the expectation that some will die. So we cannot really say that the average firefighter or police officer has demonstrated the courage required to invade Normandy or Baghdad. Certainly some have. But can we say with certainty that wavering on the part of some would not compromise our strategic goals?

Don,

I like your thinking - but you are wrong. Combat isn't like firefighting or police work. Think D-Day, not Iraq. The men in that first wave knew their chances of survival were minimal. You can't have men quitting, or even thinking about quitting, in such a situation. The policeman can stop and call for backup. The soldier must go forward even when he knows he is likely to die.

Also, the enlistment contracts are not unfair. I always knew my enlistment could be involuntarily extended in time of war. It wasn't in fine print. I'm sure its disappointing to actually have it happen - but it isn't unfair.

Finally, I'm not for a draft either. A modern military simply will not operate with slave labor. A call for the draft is a call for cannon fodder, and the draftees will come, as always, from the lower classes. There is no recruitment shortage that cannot be solved by paying soldiers what they are worth.

But other firms and industries supply high-cost, high-value training to their employees -- employees who are free to quit.

Yes, although some of those other firms and industries make people sign non-disclosure and non-compete agreements as well.

I've never been in the military, but as far as I know from talking to military folks there is a clause that allows the term to be extended by the government under certain circumstances. If it's in the contract, and you don't read it, well, that's your look out.

That said, recruiters will promise a lot and often never deliver. Which is quite wrong.

But other firms and industries supply high-cost, high-value training to their employees -- employees who are free to quit.

If you consider the high-value training received in the military, I wouldn't be surprised if many more people enlisted but avoided war.

The military is probably one of the more successful government training programs. I know for a fact that military experience is a great aide in jobs requiring complex management and logistics.

The value of having more people in society trained in self-defense, first aide, and crisis management would be high. It actually goes well with the modern asymmetric war, where a knowledgeable and enabled distributed society is the best defense against a liquid threat like Al Queda.