soc.veterans

On Apr 9, 3:27 pm, "Billzz" wrote:
> "Harry" wrote in message
>
> news:47fd2742$0$6161$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > mg wrote:
> >> On Apr 7, 6:19 pm, "BigRedWingsFan" wrote:
> >>>http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/9cb5d2aa-f237-464e-9cdf-a5...
>
> >> John McCain and many other politicians believe in the back-door draft.
> >> Out of one side of their mouth they tell us how critical it is to "win
> >> the war" in Iraq. Out of the other side of their mouth they are saying
> >> that it's not important enough to reinstate the draft and treat our
> >> service people fairly.
>
> >>http://www.mfso.org/article.php?list=type&type=45
>
> > Why do Democrats always want to reinstate the draft?
>
> > Don't they know they can serve along side the Republicans by joining the
> > all volunteer services?
>
> This subject is well-studied at the war college level. There are many
> studies done, although probably few of them are available to the general
> public. Let's leave politics out of the discussion. Historically, an armed
> force was the deciding factor in who was in charge. If the armed force did
> not like the current leader, out he went. Armed forces that were composed
> of a general cross-section of society, and reflected that society, were also
> reflective of the general position of the electorate - now we're talking
> democracies. If it's a dictatorship, it's a little different, but that's
> another subject - yet to come.
>
> So the United States developed a draft to fight large wars, but this also
> provided people in the barracks who reflected the general population
> (disregarding relative age, fitness, etc.) I went into the draft army, in
> 1958 (the proverbial "Happy Days) with about ten-twenty percent draftees,
> who were older, more mature, some were married, better educated (my bunk
> mate had his master's, and one day the mail bought him a royalty check from
> the Atlantic Monthly for his translation of Polish poems) and were a
> stabilizing influence. Much later I commanded a battalion in the
> all-volunteer army.


> We had better equipment, better training, better
> everything - but the people. The people scored much lower in intelligence,
> and overall judgment. The share of CAT I and II were almost non-existent.
> CAT III A was less, CAT III B was more, and now we had CAT IV, never allowed
> in the draft army. The army gives a basic entry test (and has given the
> test, modified over the years, to well over twenty million or so men) going
> back to WWII. Any statistic you want is there, but it seems closely held.

I wasn't aware of the quality issue when I suggested that the draft be
reinstated for the Iraq war. So, you have taught me something new and
provided another reason why reinstating the draft is a good idea.

My reasons for supporting reinstatement were based on morality issues
and cost savings. Under international law an occupying force is
required to do everything possible to provide law and order and insure
that the country's citizens receive adequate basic services. In Iraq,
though, people are wading in sewage, drinking bad water, and dying of
disease and the ethnic cleansing that has taken place under our
supervision is said to be worse than the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.

In addition, costs are soaring. I heard somewhere that we have about
as many contractors in Iraq as military personnel. We have to pay
large recruitment bonuses and I suspect that the lower ranks are
probably over paid. When I was in the Army, for example, as an E-1, I
received $78/month and pulled KP and cut the 1st Sergeants lawn. There
were no contractors.

In addition, it also looks like the higher quality recruits the
military gets with a draft also saves money. Here's a quote:

"The pattern is clear: The higher the score on the aptitude test, the
better the performance in the field. This is true for individual
soldiers and for units. Moreover, the study showed that adding one
high-scoring soldier to a three-man signals team boosted its chance of
success by 8 percent (meaning that adding one low-scoring soldier
boosts its chance of failure by a similar margin).

Smarter also turns out to be cheaper. One study examined how many
Patriot missiles various Army air-defense units had to fire in order
to destroy 10 targets. Units with Category I personnel had to fire 20
missiles. Those with Category II had to fire 21 missiles. Category
IIIA: 22. Category IIIB: 23. Category IV: 24 missiles. In other words,
to perform the same task, Category IV units chewed up 20 percent more
hardware than Category I units. For this particular task, since each
Patriot missile costs about $2 million, they also chewed up $8 million
more of the Army's procurement budget."

http://www.slate.com/id/2133908/

> The all-volunteer army is a mercenary army. We try to not use that term
> because it invokes memories of other mercenary armies. But the same problem
> is inherent. Sooner or later the composition of the army will not reflect
> the general population, but will be a closed society. Not today; there are
> still people volunteering out of patriotism, or for other noble ideals - the
> professional football player, who have up million, comes to mind. But if
> military history is any guide (and the United states has done a lot to
> preclude other nation's histories) the specter of a "man on horseback" is in
> our future. If it is like "Seven Days in May" then the system will avert
> the problem.
>
> Following the polls that everyone seems to be running, one should note some
> significant changes in the general attitude of the population. The
> favorable ratings for politicians is now rated lower than that of the
> military - although there's a lot of dependency on exactly who we are
> talking about - but that wasn't the case, most of the time, in our history.
>
> Anyway, it's a fascinating field of study, which I've spent too much time
> boring you with.