In 1940,
the United
States instituted a peacetime military draft that helped provide troops for
World War II
and the Korean and Vietnam wars. On Jan. 27, 1973, the day the Vietnam peace
pacts were
signed, the draft was ended. Fast-forward to the present, when some armed
services are
having difficulty meeting recruiting goals. Could a resurrection of the draft
solve these
problems? What problems of its own would a draft create?
Yes
By Charles Moskos
No problem
is more serious in our armed forces than recruitment and retention. Even
without such
personnel shortages, the services are too understrength to meet the needs of
the post-Cold
War era. The only way to resolve these problems is to bring back the draft.
It is time to
construct a conscription system that will both reinvigorate the citizen
soldier and
properly compensate the career force.
A draft for the 21st century would be based on
several
principles: Only males would be drafted, as service in combat arms would be a
high
likelihood. (Women, of course, could enlist as they do now.) The term of
active duty would
be short, say 18 months; there would be a follow-on assignment to a reserve
component for
two years. With conscription, moreover, it is likely that enlistments in the
reserves
would increase markedly, thus ending another recruiting shortfall. Very
important, options
for alternate civilian service would be generous in a reconstituted
conscription system,
thereby fully respecting conscientious objectors rights not to serve in
the armed
forces.
A common argument against conscription is that
todays
overseas missions require professional soldiers. Let us remember that in
World War II,
Korea, and Vietnam, most combat soldiers had only six months of training
before being sent
to war. Peacekeeping operations are best suited to short-term servers at the
lower
enlisted ranks.
A reality often overlooked in the all-volunteer
force is that
one-third of entering members fail to complete their initial enlistments.
Contrast this
with the one in 10 draftees who did not complete their two-year obligation.
Its much
better to have a soldier serve a short term honorably than be discharged
prematurely for
cause.
Another argument against the draft is that the
contemporary
military requires a high level of technical skill that cannot be met by
short-term
personnel. Precisely. Higher compensation should be aimed at those whose
skills require
extended training and job experience. A two-track pay system could be devised
to give
long-term enlistees higher compensation than their drafted counterparts (many
of whom,
however, may have preexisting technical skills).
The need to enhance the compensation of the career
force is very
pressing. To put it baldly, we now have overpaid recruits and underpaid
sergeants. This is
one reason the junior enlisted force is disproportionately likely to be
married, with the
attendant family strains. Pay raises and bonuses should be focused on the
career force,
not on recruits. This only can be done with conscription. In the draft era,
the pay ratio
between a master sergeant and a private was 6-to-1; today it is 3-to-1.
Restoring
something like the old balance is the best way to upgrade retention in
hard-to-fill skills
and leadership positions. The jump between a junior enlisted person and a
noncommissioned
officer must again be significant.
Along with a draft, a major redirection is required
in the way
federal aid operates in higher education. Annually, $43 billion in grants and
loan
subsidies goes to students who do not serve their country. We have created a
GI Bill
without the GI. Federal college aid must be linked with military or civilian
service.
The strongest argument against the draft is one
usually not
raised. Namely, who serves when not all serve? Even with larger active duty
and reserve
components, even with expanded forms of civilian service, only about half of
the male
cohort would probably be needed to serve their country.
How then can a draft be equitable? The answer is to
start
conscription at the top of the social ladder. Begin by drafting graduates of
leading
private and public universities. This will not only ensure the legitimacy of
conscription
with the public at large but also will have a positive effect on recruitment
across the
social fabric. Something close to this existed in the peacetime draft of the
Cold War. In
my Princeton class of 1956, for example, two thirds served in the military.
By 1999, the
number was less than 2 percent.
Indeed, getting the children of Americas
ruling classes to
serve their country is the strongest argument for bringing back the draft.
Who better to
do a term of service than those who benefit most? If serving ones
country becomes
common among privileged youth, future leaders in civilian life will have had
a formative
citizenship experience. This only can be to the advantage of the armed forces
and the
nation.
Charles
Moskos, a former
draftee, is professor of sociology at Northwestern University. His books
include The
American Enlisted Man, The Military: More Than Just a Job?, All That We Can
Be, and The
Postmodern Military. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences.
No
By Alan
Gropman
I
recognize there is great nostalgia for the draft. I speak to audiences all
over America
about mobilization planning, and the majority of people more than 40 years
old believe
returning to the draft would be beneficial to the country and to its youth. I
disagree.
The draft has never been equitable, although some
draft eras have
been more evenhanded than others. Draft laws are written by politicians,
draft board
members are chosen by politicians, and because domestic politics intrude on
every process
touched by officeholders, some benefit from the ways the laws are written and
enforced,
and others do not. The American Civil War draft is a notorious example but by
no means the
only one.
In that war, Confederate slave owners possessing 20
or more
slaves were exempt, and so were the overseers of at least that number.
Members of state
legislatures also were exempt. Confederate law also permitted the wealthy to
buy their way
out. The Union also allowed the rich to opt out through commutation (a $300
payment for
most of the war) or by purchasing a substitute.
Subsequent drafts did not directly exempt the
wealthy. The World
War I Selective Service Act was much more objective, but it, too, had
striking inequities.
Let me cite just one example: About 24 million men were registered for the
World War I
draft, and about 17 million passed the initial physical and mental tests. Of
these, more
than 8 million petitioned for exemptions for a variety of reasons. Virtually
all of those
exempted were white! African-Americans made up 9 percent of the population in
1917, but 13
percent of those drafted. Why? Because there were no African-Americans on
draft boards,
and when a white man requested an exemption, an African-American could be
found to send in
his place. Given in 1917 the political impotency of African-Americans, the
sorry state of
race relations, the relatively much poorer health of African-Americans in
general, and the
terrible schools African-Americans attended, the statistics are striking. So
much for the
war to make the world safe for democracy.
The World War II draft was perhaps our most just
draft, but even
there, the undereducated were most likely to be carrying bayonets or leading
those who
did, and the well-educated were more likely to find themselves in the
Pentagon or serving
in one of the dozens of civilian organizations that ran the war effort. Many
of these
bureaucracies were huge the War Production Board, for example,
contained more than
20,000 bureaucrats. Furthermore, many skilled workers burrowed into war
industries in
which employees were granted draft exemptions, and they guarded these
privileges fiercely.
Read about Rosie the Riveter, and learn how hostile men were to females in
war plants
because for every woman in such a factory and there were millions
a man
might become eligible for the draft. In 1945, because of a severe manpower
shortage, the
War Manpower Commission tried to draft more than 350,000 surplus farm
workers, but
farm-state representatives and senators were successful in legislating
against their being
drafted. (President Truman vetoed the bill, but, because he did so in the
spring of 1945,
none served.)
The primary reason I oppose a draft, however, is
because
presidents have taken advantage of this too readily available pool for
domestic political
reasons. Truman could not have gone to war in Korea without a formal
declaration if he had
not had a draft force to fall back on. Nobody would be able to accuse him of
losing Korea
the way Joseph McCarthy and Richard Nixon pilloried him, Dean Acheson, and
George Marshall
for losing China. But a more glaring example is
Vietnam.
Let me give you a quote from President Lyndon
Johnson: In 1964,
on the cusp of deciding whether or not to up the ante in Vietnam, McGeorge
Bundy suggested
that Johnson consider using only volunteers to fight in Vietnam. The
president replied,
Well, you wouldnt have a corporals guard, would you?
Johnson and
Nixon prosecuted that disastrous war without a formal declaration because
they had a draft
(an exceptionally unjust one, at that).
We dont need a draft now, and we dont
want to put
such a pool of people into the hands of politicians without requiring them to
seek formal
approval from the peoples representatives.
Alan
Gropman is chairman
of the Grand Strategy and Mobilization Department at the Industrial College
of the Armed
Forces. He was never drafted but served 27 years in the U.S. Air Force,
including two
flying tours in Vietnam in which he accumulated more than 670 combat
missions. His views
are his and his alone and do not represent those of the Industrial College of
the Armed
Forces, the National Defense University, the Department of Defense, or
anybody else.
|