Perrspectives - Bringing light to Darkness

An Army of One?

September 30, 2005

The recruiting woes of the American military continue unabated. The AP reported today that the U.S. Army just completed its worst recruiting year since 1979. The shortfall for the all-volunteer force was among the most dramatic, both in absolute numbers (7,000) and as a percentage of the target (80,000), since the United States ended conscription in 1973.
These disconcerting results reflect the ongoing chaos and unending carnage in Iraq. In this environment, the Army understandably will miss its goal of expanding by 30,000 troops, let alone adding two full divisions as many advocate.
Even more disconcerting is the political reaction to the recruiting crisis on both the left and right. Conservatives rush into spin mode, portraying progress in Iraq they claim is not reflected in mainstream media coverage. Thursday's Senate testimony by Secretary Rumsfeld and Generals Abizaid and Casey, acknowledging the woeful state of the Iraqi security forces, should quickly dispel that illusion.
On the left, many bloggers (including some of my favorites) see opportunity. Atrios and First Draft lambast conservative chicken hawks ("the 101st Fighting Keyboarders") who won't sign up themselves. AmericaBlog finds linkages between the growing body armor scandal and the drop-off on new Army signups.
Sadly, this gamesmanship misses the point. Our growing difficulties in maintaining an all-volunteer military force capable of addressing American national security needs over the next decade should trigger a fundamental debate:

Do the American people believe in a shared responsibility for national defense of the United States?

As I've argued repeatedly in the past, Americans must answer "yes." And as I described in "Getting Drafty" and "The Coming Draft Debate", current and emerging American national security challenges require the reinstatement of the draft and a new "hybrid model" of national service. Developments (including hurricanes Katrina and Rita) over the just the past several weeks reflect just how rapidly the pressure is building to bolster American military force levels.
The vast majority of Americans oppose reinstatement of the draft and President Bush has said it will not happen on his watch. Events, however, tell another story about the coming debate on the draft.

4 comments on “An Army of One?”

  1. Good post. I agree. Regardless of the need for troops in peace time or in war time, there should be a collective responsibility to defend this country. The military should be mostly composed of draftees. Perhaps I don't really understand the practical implications of such a drastic shift. I acknowledge the point that a military probably operates more effectively if the members choose to be there. But to me it is a very compelling argument that the scarifices should be borne by all segments of society (rich, poor, middle-class, well-connected, "nobodies", famous, everyone). It's also compelling to me the arguments that such a military would help social cohesion, help break down class and race barriers, and inject the leadership of this country with a true sense of the cost and consequences of sending the military to fight wars. If more leaders in congress, the cabinet, the white house, etc... had sons and daughters in the line of fire I can't help but think that their decision making process would be radically altered. Too many segments of American society, including the civilian government leaders, are insulated form the sacrifices and the cost. The war doesn't affect the majority of us all that much.
    I'm going to link to this post on my blog and add a few more thoughts to what I've said here.


About

Jon Perr
Jon Perr is a technology marketing consultant and product strategist who writes about American politics and public policy.

Follow Us

© 2004 - 
2024
 Perrspectives. All Rights Reserved.
linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram