The Reality of Our All-Volunteer Military

By Russell Beland and Curtis Gilroy
Saturday, November 25, 2006; Page A21

For the first time since the American Revolution, the United States is fighting a protracted war with an all-volunteer force. The strain on both the military establishment and individual service members is apparent. But although there has been considerable concern that an all-volunteer approach could not possibly fill the ranks in wartime, both recruiting and retention of military personnel have remained strong during more than three years of American military operations in Iraq.

To be sure, the active-duty, reserve and National Guard components of the military have missed a few recruiting goals, but overall numbers remain solid. Retention rates also remain high -- in many cases a tour of duty in a combat zone actually appears to increase the likelihood of a service member's staying in the military.

Regardless of one's opinion of the management and progress of the war on terrorism, the concept of an all-volunteer force has been an amazing success by virtually any measure. The U.S. military is sustaining combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq while continuing to meet obligations around the globe. And even with unemployment rates near record lows, the military still has tens of thousands of young men and women on waiting lists to join the active-duty force.

Still, some individuals continue to look for trouble where none exists. One common strain of criticism surfaced in the Nov. 4 op-ed by Princeton professor Uwe E. Reinhardt, who asserted that "it is well known that to fill the ranks of enlisted soldiers, sailors and Marines, the Pentagon draws heavily on the bottom half of the nation's income distribution, favoring in its hunt for recruits schools in low-income neighborhoods."

The implication is that the military scoops up the disadvantaged, uneducated and unemployed from the nation's slums and sends them off to fight while the children of the upper and middle classes remain home in comfort and safety. That conveys an impression of military service as a last resort for those with nowhere else to turn. The reality is far different.

Each year about 180,000 men and women enlist in the active-duty forces (another 16,000 are commissioned as officers, and tens of thousands more, including many active-duty veterans, join the National Guard and the reserves). Those who enlist come from all parts of the country, from all races and ethnicities, and from households across the economic spectrum. Far from being concentrated among the poorly educated and economically disadvantaged, military recruits, the data show, represent the best of America's youth. More than 90 percent of recruits have high school diplomas, compared with 80 percent of American youth overall. About two-thirds of today's recruits score in the upper half of standardized aptitude tests. Military recruits are also more physically fit than American youth in general, and they are subject to strict character screening.

Finally, recruits come disproportionately from neighborhoods with above-average incomes. This was true before the war with Iraq, and it remains true today. In fact, those recruited during the war are more likely to come from affluent neighborhoods than are those who were recruited before the war.

A recent study by Tim Kane of the Heritage Foundation -- which is consistent with our own analyses -- showed that the percentage of recruits coming from the highest-income Zip codes in the United States had increased steadily since 1999, while the percentage coming from the lowest-income Zip codes had declined. By 2005 high-income areas were producing five recruits for every three from low-income areas. At the same time, recruit quality, as measured by high school diploma rates and aptitude test scores, remained high.

Those choosing to enlist in the military do so for a variety of reasons. Many are interested in economic factors, such as skills training and GI Bill educational benefits. For some it is travel and adventure. But the primary reason young people join the military today is service to their country. What we are witnessing in this time of war is a larger proportion of enlistees joining the military primarily for duty, honor and patriotism. Economic factors, while still important, are secondary for many.

An all-volunteer approach, with adequate compensation levels, has provided a steady flow of quality recruits for more than 30 years. Recruiting during wartime poses additional challenges, but even after more than three years in Iraq, the spirit of volunteerism continues to fill the ranks with high-quality men and women who serve because they choose to do so.

Russell Beland is deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for manpower analysis and assessment. Curtis Gilroy is the director of accession policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6112401103.html

Its all but impossible to find dissent amongst mercenaries. Something tells me our founding fathers would not agree with the idea of a professional military, how did we make it 230 years without one?

Except for national emergencies and the first half of the Cold War the United States depended upon a professional military Vaughn. As astute as you are in history you ought to know that.

September 16, 1940 FDR signed into law the first ever peacetime draft in this country's history, that experiment ended on July 1, 1973. The United States Constitution is quite specific with respect to compelling men to join the military. Article I, Section 8 authorizes Congress "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." No other justification is specified.

Hmmm. Should our militia repelled BushCo's invasion of Iraq?

Interesting!...The invasion goes against the intent of a "standing army". The militia (citizens) theoretically, could be called up to suppress the government.

Russell Beland is deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for manpower analysis and assessment. Curtis Gilroy is the director of accession policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

This column was not composed by journalists, please note who the authors are and the only attributable source mentioned is that of the Heritage Foundation.

So do you think it is biased or unbiased? Why not some more source references?

Or is this a piece of that military PR we have heard about?

So although this was published in the WP it is not written by their staff.


lenal'
:cold:

Mercenaries, eh? Methinks that ain't what you called enlistees/reenlistees face to face when you was in the Nam, but I might be wrong. 'Could be you was braver or stupider than common sense dictated when surrounded by unhappy folks carryin' weapons. Probably at least as biased or unbiased as some of the other stuff like CounterPunch and the like so popular 'round here as sources, eh?

From The Beards’ New Basic History of the United States; 1944, page 117 and 118
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 68-14172
“Sorely tried by the conduct of militiamen and volunteers, General Washington again and again begged the Congress to provide for a regular army composed of men enlisted for a long term or the duration of the war. But it was only when failures and defeats threatened utter ruin that the civilians in congress, frightened at the mere thought of a standing army as dangerous to civil liberty, yielded to his pleas and offered extra pay to officers and privates pledged to see the war through to the end. At last in the closing years of the conflict Washington had at his command a large body of men so pledged and well disciplined for action in battle.”

If you asked anybody in the military if they consider themselves mercenaries I think you'd get a resounding answer of NO!

The all volunteer military is made up of people who love the United States and see what they are doing as the highest service to the country that they love.

I can personally testify you ain't going to get rich serving in the military.

You tell us fly, how much time did you spend in combat with draftees, just what experience is driving your thoughts of abhorrence towards American conscripts? History tells a completely different tail than what you are saying here. Draftees were a significant ingredient in the makeup of the Army, and history indicates they served their country well. We concluded this same discussion back in late 04 or early 05, seems you have not furthered you education since then, evident by your lack of military knowledge on this subject. There are several web sites for those who don’t read books, that will offer a honest perspective on the positive impact of the draftee. If you can’t speak from experience then you should at least take the time to read the facts before you tout something you know little or nothing about.
You should recognize the two examples below; they were quite famous in their time.

Harlon H. Block was drafted in 1943 after a year of working in the Texas oil fields. He volunteered for parachute duty and served in the same battalion as Hayes on Bougainville.
Franklin R. Sousley, a boyish-looking nineteen-year-old draftee, had grown up on his grandfather's small Kentucky farm.
For the whole story, http://www.medalofhonor.com/IwoJimaFlagRaisers.htm, or http://www.cmohs.org/
It’s not our place to keep you abreast of the facts. It is important that other readers of this forum be given the facts and not just your uninformed opinion.

Three tours in the Nam, eh? Late 68 to early 69, late 69 to early 70, and summer of 72 were all spent in that garden paradise and units I was either had or worked with units where draftees did their job well.

I'll admit none of them tours was served for the full length they were supposed to, but I just seemed to get 'em cut short by bein' in the way of stuff comin' my way. Not they way I wanted to come home from any of 'em.Really gotta call you on this one methinks. Please show anyplace where I've expressed "thoughts of abhorrence towards American conscripts", eh?

"I know I’ve said this before, but in case you missed it; thanks for your service, I’m especially partial to corpsmen and medics", everything they did was “above and beyond”

You can decide for yourself, brave or stupid, I assure you I trusted draftees every bit as much as enlistees,
The “frag” was the weapon of choice for those who aimed to harm fellow soldiers.

who are the un-happy folks refered too above?

The "frag" was not always applied in a wise or judicial manner either Vaughn.

I knew a fellow who was a Captan in the Marines, an Engineer. He was sent TAD out to a spot that hadn't seen a VC in months to prepare an estimate for repairing a bridge damaged by a tank crossing who wasn't suppose to.

When he got there he noted a certain lack of discipline of the Army Soldiers there, namely a good number of them sitting on their duffs and a strong odor of pot in the air.

Apparently one of these fellows figured out since this fellow was a Marine officer he must be the enemy and he deserved to be fragged.

Well, the only thing that saved him was the floor of the hooch they put him up in was so unlevel the frag rolled behind a water heater before it went off.

You couldn't have known a more kind or gentle man than that fellow was, I went to high school with him and keep crossing paths with him all through my career. He married a WM officer who ended up out ranking him, he retired as a Major, she retired as a Colonel.

He runs a nice little bar in Naha Okinawa now.

I’m not going to search the 05 discussions, here is something a little more recent, sorely points to the fact your no fan of conscription eh.

QUOTE(Frenchy @ Nov 22 2006, 08:45 AM)
I would be concerned about have conscripts serving in a conflict that doesn't directly effect this nation, and especially in a combat role.
flydangler; “Completely agree!”

Quote, flydangler; Not that this thread mighta drifted off topic a bit, but methinks it'd be nice to think of the ramifications of reinstitutin' a military draft.

First of all IMHO conscription is forced servitude, eh? Do we really wanna return to that?

Second is the fact that a draft would make it so much easier for the military services to meet their manpower needs, albeit with a much higher attrition rate. Consequently methinks many of the bonuses, pay raises and other benefits, like ones that give kids from lower socio-economic backgrounds a chance at higher education, would go by the wayside. Does that sound like a good thing?

Maybe you'd best go ahead and search for what's not not there either, 'cause methinks you've shown nothin' here that even comes close to what you accused me of. IMHO there's a tremendous difference between me not bein' a fan of conscription, which I readily admit, and your claim that I've expressed "thoughts of abhorrence towards American conscripts", eh?

Here's the main reasons I don't like conscription:

1. Conscription is forced servitude. IMHO that's a form of slavery, which I'm not in favor of. Said it in years past, said it again recently, yet you seem to either not wanna consider this or else you ignore it, eh?

2. 'Cause of their shorter active duty obligation conscripts will not be eligible for any but the shortest training streams. Methinks this means they become whatever specialty takes the shortest time to train for (e.g. infantry). If I recall right methinks draftees attrited at somethin' like three times the rate enlistees do, which means higher turnover and less unit cohesion. IMHO that'd be a big negative in front line combat units.

3. The ability to generate numbers through conscription means the military will no longer have to offer bonuses, educational benefits and the like that methinks many folks now enlistin' rely on to get ahead. That'd mean folks'd be less likely to be able to use military service as a means to step up from their present socio-economic status, and at the same time might result in lower quality applicants for enlistment. That'd methinks affect everyone in the military in a negative way.

4. My own past experiences in the Nam where my Marine platoon worked along side Army units indicated to me that Army NCOs often seemed to regard draftee dominated grunt squads and fire teams as easily replaceable cannon fodder. Methinks I'd hate to see that type of disregard for the well bein' of individuals servin' in the combat units at the lowest pay grades ever return. IMHO every individual in the military, whether enlistee or draftee, was a human bein' deservin' of respect and NCOs need to watch out for the well bein' of all servin' under them!

Those are my main reasons for bein' against conscription. Others may feel differently and that's fine by me.

If you wanna dispute my opinions please limit it to opinions I actually have, eh? Don't try injectin' your own interpretations into it please.

Just for your information, methinks anytime I've mentioned the draftees I've served with in previous notes over the years, even when I commented on the fact many voiced displeasure over bein' where they were at and/or doin' what they was doin', I ain't never said they didn't do their job. To the best of my recollection I ain't never voiced anything but respect for them or done anything to demonstrate anything but respect towards 'em, eh? If you think you can find somethin' different then by all means be my guest and go for it, but methinks maybe you just read into what I wrote somethin' that wasn't really there.Oh yeah, the "unhappy folks carryin' weapons" I was referrin' to were folks who'd rather be back in the world sippin' brews than playin' in the jungle's all. If you read somethin' more'n that into it methinks 'tis your problem, not mine.

You and your minority opinion are well known here, you are entitled to you opinion regardless of you lack of candor and humility. I would fight to the death to protect your right to have an opinion or to state it publicly. But honestly, it’s not worth the time it takes to search through the multitude of right wing misinformation you’ve been touting since the inception of this “forum of temperance and moderation”. Your arguments have been both rebutted and refuted on enough occasions that it’s not time wise to go back at every instance you claim in the face of reality to be right when the odds are your not. If you have enough time on your hands, we will be happy to read your corrections of miss-spoken facts.

Forced servitude, we’ve heard all that crap before; nations with “flydanglers slavery”
According to fly, these are the counties involved in the “slave trade”
Countries where there is conscription but where provisions are made to exclude people based on conscientious objections, religious objections, extra-ordinary family obligations, compassionate grounds and/or voluntary enrollment in alternative civilian or non-military service.
Angola
Austria
Belarus
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cape Verde
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Federal Republic of Germany
Finland
France
Hungary
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Ukraine
Countries that will draft non-combatants (ie: medical service personnel, humanitarian aids, office workers, cooks, etc...), usually on an as needed basis only.
Croatia
Yugoslavia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Russian Federation
Switzerland
Nope fly, we just see it quite differently.
Fly you got any idea how many conscripts took on the extra time for the guaranteed school? I’ve said many times, I can’t say how the other services worked; the Army tested every single soul who entered the Army. The test results indicated what this person would be best at, then the person was directed to the proper school. The Army not being too foolish wanted the best potential out of their people regardless of their being drafted or otherwise. People who tested poorly ended up in a combat of arms unit. The time in service was never an issue for what training a person would receive. There were exceptions, OCS and a few others. Which brings us to this statement of “ability to generate numbers”, which is precisely why the Army initiated the Bonus Program in the first place. Offering a bonus for re-enlistment was to address the retention of well trained draftees, a problem in the late sixties. In other threads, some argue that today’s enlistees are not joining to enhance their opportunities, supposedly they are not disadvantaged in the first place, today’s recruitment is not a draft for the disadvantaged. Yet, we have the educational aspect considered very important to enlistees. Now as it was in my day, a serious consideration. The reason there are bonuses is to help retain good people, same today as it used to be. The bonus programs went hand in hand with conscription.
I was an Army NCO, and what is said about cannon fodder is pure crappola, coming from someone who obviously doesn’t have a clue to the reality of combat in the Army. Over the past couple of years I’ve posted a couple of dozen Medal Of Honor citations exclusively given to draftees, call them cannon fodder and many will take offence. Rather than repeat the same ol regimented BS, how about a new fresh idea or two. So fly, have you tried sales, you’d be really good at it?

Could be I'm wrong, but I don't thinks so, not on this - methinks that was just a long obfuscatious way of sayin' you can't show where I've expressed "thoughts of abhorrence towards American conscripts" like you claim. Guess I'd best not hold my breath waitin' for it to happen either, eh?

What Army units were you working alongside and which marines were with you fly? You want me to go digging, how about your doing some digging. I’m just about the only one here who is not hiding, you see my name, you might have goggled it, I sure don’t give a crap. I’m not here to become a hero, I am who I am, and it’s all out there for the casual observer to see. I’ve posted my military history, including unit web sites that verify me doing what I’ve said I’ve done, and you? You are quick with the “I’ve never said that” sending some folks into the archive trying to recall what was said. Like I said before, you show me where I’m wrong. Your also quick to say you have all this grand experience, yet we’ve seen nothing to point to those facts, like the lady said the other day, prove who you are? Why hide behind a fake name. If your experience makes you worthy of authoritative commentary tell us whats in your background that makes you the expert?
Here are your words, not very complimentary of conscripts are they, maybe even abhorrent, depending on how honest.
4. My own past experiences in the Nam where my Marine platoon worked along side Army units indicated to me that Army NCOs often seemed to regard draftee dominated grunt squads and fire teams as easily replaceable cannon fodder. Methinks I'd hate to see that type of disregard for the well bein' of individuals servin' in the combat units at the lowest pay grades ever return. IMHO every individual in the military, whether enlistee or draftee, was a human bein' deservin' of respect and NCOs need to watch out for the well bein' of all servin' under them!
So what is it, supposition or first hand?
"easily replaceable cannon fodder"

catch your breath fly, there is a sales job in the paper you need to check out.

We're not going down this road again. Do I make myself clear?

This is not going to be a problem. A detour will not be necessary.

Geez, again I gotta do this, eh? Hopefully it'll finally satisfy you guys. This's almost 40 years ago and my memory ain't all that terrific.

Got in country and joined B 1/26 early November 68 at Phu Loc. Within a couple days the battalion went to DaNang with 1stMarDiv, but our platoon was sent south to Nha Trang attached to the Army's I Field Force to help with small unit recon patrols of the area along the road to Cam Rahn Bay. They was usin' adjunct forces for these off road recons since the MPs in the Central Highlands had their hands full elsewhere, especially Highway 19, tryin' to keep roads clear, eh? Actual patrols of the road itself were still the MP's bailiwick though, methinks they was from the 504th MP Battalion when we first got there, then another MP unit (maybe from the 93rd MP Battalion?) soon took it over.

We worked with a team from 5th Special Forces (A-502 I think) and some PFs to do our patrols. 'Twas not meant to be advance to engagement, just snoop and poop along the areas up to 5 clicks out from the Cam Rahn Bay Highway. We'd send out squad size patrols with two or three PFs that knew the area, the SF guys did it the same way methinks. If we got into it we'd call for assistance, which most often came from grunts from I think 1st Cav.

Only large numbers of draftees I knew of in the units we worked with were in the grunts from 1st Cav. Mighta been some with the MPs, but I don't know that for sure. Them 1st Cav grunts did their thing well and saved our bacon a couple times when we made inadvertent contact with NVA.

That's pretty much it from November 68 to January 69. That's when my whole squad was medevaced out after gettin' chewed up in an ambush.

Second Nam tour started out deployin' aboard the Constellation with VA-85 in August 69. When we arrived on Yankee Station I got assigned by the CAG to the helo SAR team with HC-7 Det 110. We flew in, mainly from the DMZ north to pick up downed pilots. Couple months later, while flying a SAR mission off Haiphong where we picked up a downed USAF pilot, our helo got shot up pretty good by a NV patrol boat and my hand got chewed up by shrapnel. Got sent to Naval Hospital Subic Bay to get it put back together, then to Oak Knoll Naval Hospital in Oakland to get definitive treatment and recover.

Third time in country was when I was sent from our clinic at Naval Air Station, Cubi Point on the Bataan Peninsula to take temporary charge of our little two man detachment at the Fleet Air Support Unit branch clinic at DaNang Air Base in the first week of June 72. We provided medical support to personnel from all the services on our side of the runway and sometimes flew as medical aircrew with the Jolly Greens of the USAF 377th ARRS. On July 17th, flyin' a mission to pick up a downed Bird Dog Pilot, I was bringin' him up on the cable when I caught a piece of a ricochet from a round that hit the hoist cable in the temple that caused me a tricky skull fracture. Got medevaced back to the Philippines where I spent a month in the neurosurgery service at the USAF hospital at Clark Air Base. After that I got to go back to work at the Cubi Point Dispensary.

Satisfied now, or we gonna keep goin' over and over this same territory like in the past, eh?

This board discourages members from revealing too much personal information.

Like Cardinal already warned, we are not going to go down this path again.
Members need to keep to the issues and stop the personal attacks or this thread will have to be closed.

Methinks tryin' show what ain't there's a fool's mission. I ain't gonna look for somethin' that don't exist, but if you're so sure then prove me wrong, eh? 'Tis a simple concept.

As to hidin' anything, methinks I ain't hidden anything 'cept maybe my real name. Even had that on here 'til someone gave me reason to remove it. 'Twas simply amazin' what folks without a clue what they're doin' (or even what a hash mark on the uniform denoted) claim success at, and/or spout that folks've said stuff they never did. Couple folks use to post here're real good at that, but only 'til they're asked to show where and/or provide a link! I saw NCOs needlessly send folks forward under fire without regard for their safety or well bein', eh? What would you call that? 'Twasn't always the case, or even the norm, but it happened and methinks provided a good clue as to how them NCOs regarded the troops they led.

Last thing and I'll quit here for the day. I ain't set up web sites glorifyin' war and it's aftermath, or my part in it and don't plan to, had serious reservations 'bout postin' 'bout my Nam tours 'cause 'tain't a time I relish rememberin', and am a bit surprised at other Nam vets who don't wanna respect those of us that feel like I do. Nuff said!