I recently had to give a presentation for one of my classes at USF. The assignment was to find a social problem had to create a solution to the issue. I chose the current recruiting shortfalls that the military is facing across the board. My solution didn't exactly cause jaws to drop on the floor, but I think I got the attention of my 20-something classmates. Here it is for your reading pleasure...
The job of killing people and breaking things is the main focus of our all-volunteer military force. However, in order of importance, recruiting falls right behind the training and equipping of the troops. Billions of dollars are spent every year to this goal. The recruiters for each branch spend months in school learning to sell the armed services to civilians (mainly high school age teens). The stress of the job takes a toll on these servicemen, yet they manage to convey the message to hundreds of thousands every year.
These guys have spit and polished routines that are pretty convincing. I speak from experience when I recall my first brush with the recruiting tactics that eventually coerced me to join. I was thirteen years old, waiting by the local gas station for my school bus. A recruiter would come in most mornings to gas up and get a cup of joe. One day he stopped by me and gave me his card. He asked me some questions and told me to give him a call if I ever thought about serving. As he left, I stood transfixed, looking at the card in my hand and thinking: "They want me. For the US Army. I must look like a total badass." The truth was that I was overweight, pimpled kid, but anyone can stop a bullet. I kept that card in wallet till I was a senior in high school. During the first week of the school year, I called the recruiting office asking for the staff sergeant that I met that at the bus stop years before. I was told that he was no longer assigned to the station by the voice at the other end of the line. However,
he would be more than glad to meet with me. Within a few weeks, my mother was standing by my side as I swore to "protect the country against all enemies foreign and domestic".
Right now, the five of the ten components (active and reserve) of the 5 branches of the military have missed the recruiting goals (by 8 to 20 percent) for the 2005 fiscal year. This includes the Army, Army Reserve, Army National Guard, Air National Guard, and Navy Reserve. The Navy even missed its retention goals by 8 percent. All the active components also saw a decrease in the number of enlistees in the Delayed Entry program. This is an option that allows the enlistee to wait up to a year to ship off to boot camp from the initial "swearing-in" ceremony. This downward trend indicates that there will be a significant loss in future enlistments. Even the Marines have missed recruiting goals in over four months for the year, but still managed to meet their annual goal. That was the first time they had missed their goals in ten years (since the Gulf War). Additionally, the overall ASVAB test score for the Army recruits is significantly lower than in years past, indicating the Army is less discriminatory in who they allow into the service.
All of these factors are strongly influenced by the current situation in Iraq. There have been several recent bills passed recently in Washington aimed at resolving this issue. The No Child Behind education bill actually tacked on a measure that allows military recruiters full access to high schooler's personal information. While this was meant to aid recruiters, it has actually stirred up controversies across the country. In Seattle, the parent-teacher-student association at Garfield High School voted 25 to 5 last month to adopt a largely symbolic resolution that "public schools are not a place for military recruiters." It was symbolic for one reason. Had they voted to ban the recruiters (which is perfectly legal), they would have risked losing federal funding for the school district. Millions in federal funding didn't stop the citizens of San Francisco who recently passed a ballot measure that bans recruiters from all public high schools and colleges. This caused a political firestorm nationwide. Talk show host Bill O'Reilly even went so far as to allude that should terrorists attack San Francisco, the US shouldn't rush to their aid. At Harvard, the university's School of Law recently backed off its initial stance to ban recruiters. The fact that they receive over $400 million in federal funds annually played heavily to this decision.
To further combat the recruiting woes, the military has taken action using several available tools at their disposal. Several years ago, the Army reassigned its advertising contract with the same firm that promotes companies such as Kellogg, Nintendo, McDonald's, Coca-Cola and Walt Disney. It was a quick "out with the old in with the new" routine that killed the "Be All You Can Be" campaign (touted as one of the most successful campaigns of all time) that ran from through the 80s and 90s. The new, more self-centered and egotistical approach was taken with the "Army Of One" slogan. For the first time, advertising has also been aimed at parents of potential recruits. To further increase enlistment money has been thrown at the problem in the form of recruit cash bonus incentives.
Sometimes however, all the catchy slogans and thousand dollar bonuses don't get the bodies that are needed, and more drastic measures are taken. In the past year, the Army instituted a "Stop Loss" on over 17,000 soldiers. Stop Loss is the term used when the military withholds service members in key occupations from leaving at the end of their enlistments. For instance, a friend of mine was to leave the military in December of 2002. He was married in October only to find he was not going to get out of the service. For over seven months he was held in a captive state in Washington DC, while his wife lived hundreds of miles away in New York. It was a depressing time for my buddy. Just imagine the thousands of troops in Iraq in the past year, weeks from going back to the States and home to family. Then they are told their unit will remain in a war zone for six months, a year. No doubt, some serious backlash and grumbling transpired among the ranks.
Another instrument the military can utilize the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). When recruits enlist in any branch of the service, they are obligated for eight years. Many never thoroughly read the contract that they signed, but it is explicitly stated. For my Army contract it stated they could call me back according to "needs of the Army", which grants them an expansive array of 'needs' to draw from. Most believe they do their two or three year active enlistment and are done. However, the military can technically pluck you from your comfortable, pot-smoking, hippie-hair-wearing, fat-bellied stupor and have you report to the nearest post within 30 days for duty. This has a direct impact on veterans like myself who have several years of obligation remaining.
In the past year, the Army sent out about 7,000 notices to IRR soldiers they needed in shortened job skills. The campaign was highly unsuccessful. A full third of those contacted never showed up. Of those who did report for duty, over half filed for exemption from duty citing family obligations, religious beliefs, desire to do drugs, physical issues, and many other reasons. They said "Thanks, but no thanks." These vets were simply satisfied with civilian life and felt they had fulfilled their obligation honorably. In fact, within the past month, the Army announced it was ending its utilization of the IRR option, at least for a while. While this is good news for guys like me, it doesn't mean that it is over. My contract, more or less signed in blood, is binding. However, what matters is that in the end, both Stop Loss and the IRR call-ups have proven detrimental to troop morale and have been momentarily abandoned. The attempted solutions to recruiting have been met with failure; the forecast remains clouded and dismal.
My proposal is this: to endorse a reactivation of conscription in the form of a draft. While this is drastic and controversial (in a recent AP poll, seven out of ten were against the draft) it remains very familiar to our country. The concept of mandatory civilian military obligation has been used since civilizations began warring with one another thousands of years ago. Historically, our country has used conscription quite a few times. Here are just a few 'little' skirmishes where conscription or a draft was used: the War of 1812, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and Vietnam. In fact, many countries currently use conscription. These include: China, Egypt, Finland, Mexico, Greece, Romania, Sweden, and Turkey. Countries such as Israel are highly successful with conscription, even going as far as allowing women to serve (!) in the military. However, Russia's conscription is rife with corruption, allowing many to gain exemptions with bribes.
In 2004, Senators Rangel (D-NY) and Hollings (D-SC) proposed legislation that would have reinstituted a draft for men and women into military of civilian service (i.e., Americorps). The Selective Service Initiative (as it was named) came to a vote in the House of Representatives. It was not even close and lost by a vote of 402-2. The two representatives explained their proposal as a protest against the president's endless wars in the Mid-East.
Needless to say, their protest had a point; and there is a strong argument to be made for reactivating the draft. If the Congress and the administration were relying on the votes of those in uniform, they would now have to think twice. When most of the country fills the 'able bodied and sound mind' requisite of the military, they would be apt to slow down a massive worldwide deployment. Those in charge would also have to consider the fact that their own children could be drafted and called to serve. Part of the reason why a draft is so unpopular is because of the bad taste left in the mouth of citizens after the Vietnam War. Rich and educated citizens were able to skirt duty (our current Vice President received five deferments from duty during that time period). An "honest draft" similar to those used in World War II and the Korean War would have to be employed this time around. Additionally, the draft would ensure that a more accurate slice of the country is represented in the armed services. Currently the military is stocked with primarily middle and lower class citizens, and does not represent our class system equally.
The draft would bolster the all-volunteer military. During the buildup to the war in Iraq, the Army's highest ranked officer, General Eric Shinseki, called loudly for a massive invading force. When he wouldn't stop, he was more or less relieved of duty. As a soldier in the Honor Guard, I was on the parade field for his retirement ceremony (of note, Secretrary of Defense Rumsfeld failed to show). In his speech, he continued to warn that the Army shouldn't overextend itself across the globe by saying "Beware the 12-division strategy for a 10-division Army." Considering that I normally focused on standing straight and beating the 90-degree heat of the Capital Region, it is strange that I even pulled those words from his speech. However, it is even stranger to see that the military eventually heeded his words. After the initial charge and occupation of Iraq, we soon discovered that more troops were needed to secure and stabilize the region. Conscription would stave off the fears of not having ample support back home. By having millions manning the guns back home, there would be plenty of troops to handle the problems abroad. While it may be too late to enact a draft to affect Iraq. For future conflicts however, we should be prepared.
Another effect of a draft is a large veteran population. Veterans are a positive force in America. Movies like Born On The Fourth Of July have presented many with a distorted view of veterans. However, contrary to those beliefs is the fact that many veterans have utilized the experiences gained from the military to better themselves. Millions used the GI Bill to further their education after World War II, enabling our country to use a educated populace to become the hegemony we are today. Additionally, the VA hospital system is no longer a punch line when it comes to providing healthcare for veterans. In fact, it is the largest single payer unified healthcare system in America today. Imagine if all citizens were veterans. Legislation would pass to increase funding for the VA system, finally activating a universal healthcare system for most Americans. This could force the streamlining of our current healthcare, with all its problems.
While the draft is controversial, it is not out of the picture. All the pieces are in place, just waiting for the next War to End All Wars. Most males (aged 18-35) are aware of the Selective Service. This puts them in a databank for access should we ever need to utilize the draft. Without entering into the system, most men cannot receive federal funding, grants, or even get a job at McDonalds. The case for a draft is very strong. Troops must be protected from administrational decisions such as ill-advised deployments, lack of support, and lack of manpower on the front lines. The time has passed to aid the troops in Iraq; however, it is only a matter of time till the draft is reactivated. Our country has used the draft successfully in the past, and there is no reason to see why it couldn't work again in the future.
