Bodies
The Iraq War Czar breaks his silence to call for the country to “certainly consider” a military draft.
“And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation’s security by one means or another,” said Lute, who is sometimes referred to as the “Iraq war czar.”
Also
“There’s both a personal dimension of this, where this kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living room conversations within these families,” he said. “And ultimately, the health of the all-volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions.”
I wonder if a draft itself would cause any stress? Would have a personal dimension that played out across dinner tables and in living room conversations? Maybe?
The real solution to the problem of repeated deployments and etc. is: fewer stupid wars. Fewer overseas deployments. Recognize that the “demands for the nation’s security” have inflated to the point of absurdity. Cut “defense” (read: military) spending significantly. Pull out of South Korea, Europe and Iraq, downsize the Navy and Air Force. The United States faces no existential threats. There is no nation or movement on Earth that could conquer America or compel submission from afar. Only a handful of countries – Russia, China, France, England – could do us more than isolated damage. None of them have any reason to, and even a much smaller American military would retain the capacity to retaliate massively if one tried. The most effective of the hostile non-state and para-state groups is al-Qaeda, and they can manage at best isolated successes within the United States. Preventing those attacks requires much less military machine than we’re paying for, and a smaller global military footprint will make it harder for groups like al-Qaeda to recruit people interested in attacking the United States anyway.
The two short-term complications to such a reset are: 1) the current war in Afghanistan; 2) managing the economic impact of gutting the “defense” industry. People who genuinely believe in a “strategic reset” should start thinking seriously about both issues. Just as a “drawdown” in Iraq that doesn’t end the war is a poor substitute for a complete withdrawal from Iraq, a withdrawal from Iraq that doesn’t lead to a major restructuring of America’s military posture in the world simply means more Iraqs in the future. Wars always mean waste and death. Lost wars are only valuable to the extent a nation learns from them.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 11, 2007 @ 9:19 am
First, excellent post.
Second, in regard to this:
The two short-term complications to such a reset are: 1) the current war in Afghanistan; 2) managing the economic impact of gutting the “defense†industry. People who genuinely believe in a “strategic reset†should start thinking seriously about both issues.
I think we could significantly reduce the size of our military and still do whatever we need to do in Afghanistan.
As to the defense industry, there is a legitimate concern about what might happen if they were downsized overnight. I think the short-term economic impacts of converting most of those resources to productive economic use would be smaller than a lot of doom-sayers predict, and the long-term impacts would certainly be positive.
My biggest concern is that they would seek to stay in the defense business and just find more foreign clients. This is one of the few places where I deviate from free trade. I really don’t like the idea of companies that spent decades developing hardware at taxpayer expense selling that stuff to foreign militaries. It’s not so much that I’m terribly afraid of foreigners (as you point out above, there’s little to fear), but I can see a lot of ways for them to make a mess if they sell overseas.
Yes, our defense industry already sells overseas, and our government already makes a lot of messes by encouraging arms sales to client states. I just wonder what might happen if this entire military-industrial complex packed up and moved elsewhere. I have a hunch it wouldn’t be good, and since a lot of their gear was developed at taxpayer expense, I don’t see anything wrong with telling them that they can’t go overseas and make messes with the stuff that we paid them to create.
Comment by G'Kar —
August 11, 2007 @ 9:33 am
I concur with Thoreau’s assessment. We do not need a huge number of troops in Afghanistan; even assuming we need two divisions there at any one time, and I believe that is more than is required, (19,500 there now according to Wikipedia), you can trim down the force to a six division Army and give everyone six months in Afghanistan and twelve months at home or a year in Afghanistan and two years at home indefinitely. In fact, you’d probably have more time at home than that with a six-division Army, since many of those 19,500 are nondivisional support elements.
Bottom line: We could cut the Army to a very small size (~100,000) and still maintain our operations in Afghanistan indefinitely.
Comment by josephdietrich —
August 11, 2007 @ 9:52 am
This is absolutely right. It has become common to believe that America has always garrisoned the world, has always intervened in foreign nations and foreign wars, has always had a huge standing military, and that these are all right and good. We need for people to realize that none of these facts are true.
Comment by Derek Copold —
August 11, 2007 @ 10:14 am
I agree with the others. Excellent post, Jim.
Comment by cfw —
August 11, 2007 @ 10:31 am
Top notch post, and I agree entirely.
I would not worry much about the “weapons will be sold overseas” for several reasons.
First, I suspect the bulk of the budget is for personnel and real estate expenses.
Second, those with the cash needed for tanks, planes, etc. (China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran) would most likely prefer to buy them in-house or used.
US can mop up the used market by purchasing all or most of the used items that come on the market.
Third, the suppliers to the US are already often foreign (AK 47’s from Europe, etc.).
In order to soak up personnel who would otherwise go into the military, why not have a draft for national service with outs for college or private employment?
Those who cannot get jobs or college spots would get drafted (or volunteer) into things like Peace Corps work overseas, conservation corps work, government funded research, job training, disaster assistance, schools support, rehab programs at prisons, unarmed support for police, military and homeland security. Ideally, give the draft vets the skills needed to go private after 2-4 years and hold down responsible private positions. Consider term limits, of the sort used in the military, to keep the size of the force within reason – avoid allegations of excessive socialism.
One important function of the military is to soak up and train a bunch of folks who might drift through chronic unemployment but for the military service and training.
Repurposing the government contractors gradually would involve giving them work that supports the US but not militarily, such as overseas Peace Corps work, conservation corps work (reroute the Mississippi), basic science research (ARPA but not for D), job training, disaster assistance, schools support/improvement, rehab programs at prisons, repurposing unneeded bases and posts, unarmed support for police, military and homeland security. Ideally, give the government contractors work that could complement current commercial work, so the contractors could “go private” over time. Perhaps term limits would be in order, to keep firms from seeking to live off the government for too long.
Budget for government contractors, land and personnel could go down 10% per year for say 5-7 years.
Trackback by www.buzzflash.net —
August 11, 2007 @ 11:06 am
Unqualified Offerings: Bodies…
The real solution to the problem of repeated deployments and etc. is: fewer stupid wars. Fewer overseas deployments. Recognize that the “demands for the nation’s security†have inflated to the point of absurdity…Just as a “drawdown†in Iraq…
Comment by Eric Martin —
August 11, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Lost wars are only valuable to the extent a nation learns from them.
Lemonade, that cool refreshing drink…
Comment by Anon —
August 11, 2007 @ 11:36 am
Indeed, an excellent post.
No one is going to believe this, but I’d bet this is Gen. Lute flinging some sand in the war machine pointed at Iran. Remember that he he is really the Joint Chiefs’ man—does anyone think he is not aware of the consequences of going on NPR and talking about a draft?
Comment by G'Kar —
August 11, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Correction: there are 23,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan right now per today’s article in the Times. Still, a 100k Army ought to be able to sustain that for quite some time.
Comment by Barry —
August 11, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
Anon, I figured that Lute was a dumbf*cker who volunteered for a job whose only possible purpose was scapegoat. His remarks about the draft strike me as confirming that – he let his draw flap in the wind.
cfw – “One important function of the military is to soak up and train a bunch of folks who might drift through chronic unemployment but for the military service and training.”
Wrong for two reasons. First, up until a couple of years ago, one had to have a high school diploma, no arrest/drug record, and be in good health. That, presumably, eliminated a lot of unemployable 18-25 year olds; the Army, at least really didn’t want people who’d be otherwise unemployable.
Second, the first purpose of the military is to defend the USA. That’s an important enough job to worry about, and playing games with the military benefits nobody whom we want benefited.
Comment by Anon —
August 11, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
Oh, Lute is no dumbfuck.
The retired generals refused the war czar spot largely because the Joint Chiefs made it clear that if the position wasn’t filled by one of their guys they would make it unworkable.
Lute was the operations chief of the JCS; he’s their man in the NSC now. Given the widely reported opposition the Chiefs hold towards any more wars, I see this as a shot at the White House, and I expect to see more of them the crazier Cheney gets re: Iran.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
August 11, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
Add 3) all the people laid off from the armed forces. A 100K army means a lot of layoffs.
Comment by G'Kar —
August 12, 2007 @ 4:51 am
Eric, that’s true, but if you draw down reasonably slowly, those people can find other jobs. It will take time to identify the people you want to draw down, and there should be money available for severance packages. It’s not necessarily easy, but I don’t think it’s an insuperable obstacle.
Comment by cfw —
August 12, 2007 @ 10:25 am
“First, up until a couple of years ago, one had to have a high school diploma, no arrest/drug record, and be in good health. That, presumably, eliminated a lot of unemployable 18-25 year olds; the Army, at least really didn’t want people who’d be otherwise unemployable.”
Employable by Walmart/MacDonalds at $8 per hour yes – but not enough military-equal jobs are out there to soak up 8-900,000 currently on the rolls of the US military (or who would have gone into the military). We go to peace with the forces we have now, not in some ideal past.
“Second, the first purpose of the military is to defend the USA. That’s an important enough job to worry about, and playing games with the military benefits nobody whom we want benefited.”
Military means what? Contractors are not military.
My plan does not play games with the core of the military – part of the the history of the military is demobilization as well as ramping up.
As ramping down occurs, at 80-90,000 per year, for 5-7 years the government needs to put those folks (those who would otherwise have joined or stayed) somewhere.
Ideally we put them 1) overseas in peaceful endeavors (increase US positives abroad, plus make us more world-aware as a country), 2) supporting R&D (including infrastructure d, education, rehab), 3) undertaking interdisciplinary ventures not yet the focus of private industry.
Ramp down as if the military were IBM begin advised by McKinnsey – make it a positive experience – like a college education at Duke for 4 years (on a grand scale). Duke likes to focus its students on the three points set out above. Duke/Princeton/Harvard/Yale are great but they think too small – scale them up to 8-90,000 per year ramping out of the military and they will earn their pay.
Comment by Iain Coleman —
August 12, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
The armed forces of the United Kingdom are British, not English. Getting this wrong riskes pissing off Scottish squaddies, and that is never a good idea.
Comment by Scott Kohlhaas —
August 12, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
I’ll tell you why not: the 13th amendment, natural rights, freedom of choice–that’s why not!
Would you be willing to spread the word about http://www.draftresistance.org? It’s a site dedicated to shattering the myths surrounding the selective slavery system and building mass civil disobedience to stop the draft before it starts!
Our banner on a website, printing and posting the anti-draft flyer or just telling friends would help.
Thanks!
Scott Kohlhaas
PS. When it comes to conscription, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!