For reasons other than those I proposed in Yes, Virginia, There WILL Be a Draft, David Hackworth also sees a draft in '05 or '06: Uncle Sam Will Soon Want Your Kids
Right now -- with both our regular and Reserve soldiers stretched beyond the breaking point -- our all-volunteer force is tapping out. If our overseas troop commitments continue at the present rate or climb higher, there won't be enough Army and Marine grunts to do the job. And thin, overworked units, from Special Forces teams to infantry battalions, lose fights.Yes. I'm aware discussing the inevitability of the Draft gives aid and comfort to the Kerry camp and the other members of a party unfit to rule at any level. At the same time, simply running about insisting that there are no plans for a draft, there will be no plans for a draft, and there will never be a draft is nothing but a temporary position taken only for political gain.Clearly, this war against worldwide, hardcore Islamic believers will be a massive military marathon, the longest and most far-flung in our country's history. By Christmas, more troops could be needed not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but wherever the radical Islamic movement is growing stronger, from the Horn of Africa to Morocco, Kenya, Somalia, Yemen and across Europe -- remember Spain?! -- to Asia.
Accordingly, we need to bring our ground-fighting and support units to about the strength they were before the Soviet Union imploded, especially since the proper ratio of counterinsurgent-to-insurgent in places like the Middle East should be around 15 to 1. You don't have to be a Ph.D. in military personnel to conclude we need more boots on the ground.
Where I diverge from Hackworth's position is in his insistence that, no matter what, increasing military needs in numerous other countries will stimulate this situation.
It's obvious that a Kerry administration would initiate an across the board pull-back from foreign adventures to something like the Sept. 10 status-quo-ante of troop deployment. What is not so obvious is that a continuing Bush Administration might be far too gun-shy to expand operations outside of Iraq but look to consolidate and control that country alone. This is not entirely unwise from a strategic and tactical perspective since it allows the US to keep Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran in check and to checkmate them if the need arises.
In neither case do we see the overwhelming need for a draft. In the first, we simply regroup and make a lot of members of the National Guard feel happy and safe -- for a while. In the latter case, we muddle through with the forces on hand.
What changes the equation above is, as I argue in the article linked above, a second devastating attack on the United States homeland with large numbers of American men, women and (especially) children killed.
In that case, Hackworth's draft comes about by default. Right after a very large surge in enlistments.
Then again we might see a surge in the oft-cited but now vanished "Kerry Peace-Corpesque Civilian Corps," since a large job on the global scale would involve decontaminating highly irradiated sites in the Middle-East.
Posted by Vanderleun at October 5, 2004 11:06 AM
Or, Hackworth is wrong, and a restructuring of where US forces are in the world would be in order. The latter is already occuring.
Hackworth also presupposes that lots of 'boots on the ground' will be necessary for the forseeable future.
Also, the Army hasn't cycled all of its reserves through Iraq yet. That may still happen. Its not at the 'breaking' point by any means. Hackworth has been pedaling his chicken little chirps for quite a while. I've ceased to listen.
When the Army startes losing battalions worth of men a week as it did in Vietnam, that will signal a breaking point. Not before.
I will even call into question the idea that there will be a draft after a second 9/11 type event. The Military doesn't want people who don't want to be there. It just doesn't work that way anymore.
Posted by: Eric Blair at October 5, 2004 1:20 PMI don't agree. David Hackworth says we need troop levels at the size of around 1990. In 1991 we fielded 465,000 ALL VOLUNTEER troops into Iraq for Gulf War I.
I agree we need to build up troop levels but we have already shown that troop levels can be built from an ALL VOLUNTEER force. There is no shortage of people who want to sign up for the military if we choose to recruit more. All that is required would be a larger recruiting effort and perhaps some additional perks.
A draft military except in a WWII type situation is not a good idea for many reasons, not the least of which is that since Vietnam and the draft forces used there we have learned that an ALL VOLUNTEER force of professional soldiers who want to be in the military are a much more effective, professional, and well disciplined fighting unit than a drafted force who didn't want to be in the military to begin with.
So there absolutely will be no draft. Yes we may need 200,000 more troops, but they can all easily come from an ALL VOLUNTEER non-drafted pool of professional soldiers. Just like in 1991.
Gary Britt
A small town country lawyer.
Hackworth has been in favor a draft for a long time. He's used all the same arguements Rangle and the like uses in terms of reducing the 'elite' and 'lower class' feelings, etc. If you aren't drafted into the army then you go into CCC/WPA types programs.
Posted by: rps at October 5, 2004 2:50 PMHackworth is a hack no longer worth listening to, despite his more than commendable service. He's made a career from these kind of unhinged comments. It keeps him well-stocked in fashionable turtlenecks and cable appontments.
The thirty year arc from Vietnam style deployment to the professional and motivated forces we have today is not something The Pentagon has any interest in undoing. Military planning always includes both the element of rapid response counterbalanced by thinking ahead 20 years at a time.
WWII required millions of soldiers to defeat other millions of soldiers on a battlefield as different from today's as one could contrive.
When the 3rd Infantry entered Baghdad, the empty "boots on the ground" they encountered were disembodied from the conscripted troops that had abandoned them. Without Turkey's mendacity the 4th would have joined them from the north and perhaps some of the chaos we are still supressing could have been mitigated sooner.
If we wanted to destroy Fallujah we could, but it's not that kind of war and the reborn Iraqi nation (and army) is our ally not our nemesis. And nobody's war-gaming a new scenario "reminiscent of Ghengis Kahn."
These kind of comments are irresposible speculation.They also may be sheathed in either a political agenda or grandstanding pose. A man who trades on his military credibility should have the courtesy to include those currently in command in his thesis or remain silent.
Hackworth also seems to forget the solution which the US has been getting better and better at since the Civil War - sending bullets and bombs instead of bodies. We're quite comfortable with throwing material at a problem, and rather adverse at sending troops.
So I don't see a draft (excepting a nuclear 9/11 with Tehran on the return address) anytime in 2005 and less than a 10% chance in '06.
If nothing else he who holds the White House will ensure his party can get in for at least a full term after the draft is imposed.
Posted by: Bravo Romeo Delta at October 5, 2004 9:16 PMWhen did the draft become a date with the executioner? Personally, I think that conscription is anti-democratic, but when the survival of the Republic is at stake, can anyone say it's not a viable option?
Those who decry the draft now will be the first screaming for it if a city is destroyed in the US. Let us try to remember that the Jihadi War is a fight for survival, its not a cold war dalliance in southeast asia.
We only need a draft if we want large armies of occupation. Bush and Rumsfeld are smart enough to know that the best way to do things is along the model of the "Northern Alliance" in Afghanistan, not the model of "Ike and Patton" in 1945.
Posted by: Frank Martin at October 5, 2004 9:43 PMSeveral posts above cite what Hackworth avoids: It just doesn't work that way these days.
The Armed Services don't WANT people who are less than willing to be there, doing that.
We're nowhere near the 'battalion-a-day' loss rate which would suggest or require a draft.
America has untapped resources in WILLING, EAGER defenders.
America has technologies NOW which empower the troops and swabbies and flyboys in ways our enemies can only blink at, in wonderment...
All-Volunteer! That's the American way. We tried the Draft, and its less than appropriate.
Posted by: carridine at October 5, 2004 9:57 PMThere are three big challenges to increasing the size of the military. Each can be overcome without a draft, and even WITH a draft the first will have to be done away with.
Problem #1: Each branch has specific size limits. I don't recall what they are ATM, but Congress has limited the size (through budget and legislation). Currently the Air Force has more people than it's allowed for, and is shedding people. This is the first and most trivial hurdle--raise the size ceilings.
Problem #2: There is a rather limited pool to recruit from, and at some point all the people willing to join will. Raise the age limits on acceptance. I am currently trying to get back in (they won't let me go active) and I know 2 other people who are my age (37) who are not prior service who would love to serve, but simply are not allowed to. Sure, we're probably too old to be the tip of the spear, but we're solid people with good work histories (two of us are willing to leave 85K+ a year jobs to do this) and we could easily help with the shaft.
And #3. Many people currently in the military leave for "greener pastures", and many young people will not consider going in the military, much less make a career out if it because the pay is so lousy. Pay raises. Military pay scales have NOT kept pace with inflation, thank you very much John F***ing Kerry. Provide decent (not great, DECENT) financial incentives, along with assurances that dependents will be adequately provided for, and fewer soldiers will leave, and you will get more (and better) soldiers in.
Raise the ceilings, allow a broader age range, and pay them better.
Seems pretty simple to me, but then I was a Marine, and we're kinda that way sometimes.
Posted by: petro at October 5, 2004 11:26 PMI would join the military like a shot -- the Marines -- but they don't want me cuz of my age, even though my physical condition is terrific.
Posted by: Helen at October 10, 2004 10:29 AM
HOME