Dominant Logistics
Why the Draft Won't Work
There are some who are calling for a return of the draft for our
military. While the reasons for doing so vary, most people who support this notion
are losing sight of what is really the underlying cause of the problems within the
military. A draft would not only fail to correct the problems that most people want
corrected, if anything it would make these problems worse.
Most within and around the military that support the draft do so because they feel
draftees without a career at stake would be more willing to stand up against the bad ideas
and policies that pervade the force. This view is simplistic at best and naive at
worst. Even if they do stand up against the mistakes, who is going to listen to a
Private with less than two years in service who didn't want to be there to begin with?
Who is to say that these troops won't simply make things up specifically to get out
of duties they don't wish to be part of?
Another claim of draft proponents is that the draft will provide for a more balanced and
humane force but this too is an idealistic notion rooted in the stories and myths of World
War II. But World War II is a bygone era. Yes, great things happened there, in
many cases because of the draft, but very different circumstances made those things
possible.
In the current era, unless you are willing to draft people in their late twenties and
early thirties, you aren't going to get the quality and type of people that many envision
the draft will provide. We are looking at an era when people often had their careers
and futures mapped out before they even left high school. They understood civics and
the American way of life. They knew the Constitution and why it was worth fighting
for. They understood the need to serve their country, millions were drafted and even
more served supporting roles here at home. This was an era where actual members of
Congress left their elected positions and went off to war when their Reserve units were
called up (FDR had to fight to get the members of Congress back to Washington - Lyndon
Johnson was one of many who left Congress and went to fight). These are very
different times.
Today, members of Congress routinely use the Constitution for toilet paper, including
those very same members who are now calling for a return to the draft. Politicians
don't even hesitate to sell out the nation in search of money. Kids are graduating
high school and can't even read or write. Civics and related topics are considered
offensive and banned from many schools in the name of political correctness. The
Pledge of Allegiance is now considered controversial and offensive. The media went
into hissy fits over members who had the audacity to wear pins of the US flag on their
lapels after the events of 9/11. This is a very different world we're living in.
Our force is dramatically smaller today - even if the draft were brought back, the bulk of
the force will continue to be volunteers. The Officer and NCO corps' where the bulk
of the problems reside will continue to be exclusively volunteers, this was not the case
during WWII where field promotions were common, even raising enlisted men into the officer
ranks. Even under the best of conditions, how much voice will draftees be able to
muster in the two year stint in which they serve? And knowing that their voice is
going to be drowned out and pushed aside (as all lower enlisted voices are) and that they
will only be there for two years, why will they bother to take that stand and fight?
In the WWII era, draftees often became NCOs and occasionally even became officers
in their stints of service. You certainly wouldn't see that in any modern draft.
The real cause of the culture that is destroying the military from within is that the
system is designed so that you either accept the system or you are forced to leave.
At the heart of this problem is the military's policy of up or out. If a
military member fails to continue up the promotion ladder at what the system deems an
appropriate rate, they are forced out. By default, anyone who fails to buy into the
ticket punching, who goes against the grain, who is willing to make a stand, who is more
concerned with performing their mission than pleasing the brass, is summarily removed from
the force.
We bitch about our inability to maintain institutional knowledge and yet we force out
those who hold that knowledge or force them to move on. We want people who will
stand up to the senior brass and yet anyone who makes that stand doesn't HAVE to be forced
out; the brass can simply deny promotion and the system does it for them. There are
some who complain about the existential nature of the brass and other "lifers"
but anyone who fails to adhere to this existentialism is forced out by the system itself.
Draftees will not resolve the problems. Sure, a draftee may take a stand and refuse
to do the easy wrong - but will they be willing to do the hard right? When the
bullets get to flying, will they stand and fight or turn tail and run to protect themself?
Will they do what it takes to achieve the level of physical and mental capability
necessary to survive in combat? A goal has been proposed that light forces
have the ability to maintain a movement speed of 4-7 mph - will draftees who want no part
of the Army be willing to achieve this goal when many gung-ho volunteers are not?
Another "lesson learned" mentioned in some circles is to leave casualties
behind for the medics to deal with to maintain fighting momentum - will draftees
have the discipline necessary to do this? What will become of the force if the
answer to these and so many other similar questions is no?
People cling to the draft concept because of idealistic views of the World War II era when
military folks were willing to stand up to the brass. But consider this - who is
more likely to be heard on a given military issue? A draftee who was forced into the
Army and has been on duty for a year, or a man who has dedicated his life for 16 years to
a specific role in the force?
Whether its the military or the real world, the only thing considered more important than
rank is experience. The current system is specifically designed to remove that
experience so that no one can take the power and glory away from the brass. You
become one of them, or you pack your bags. THIS is the problem - not the lack of a
draft. If we truely wish to correct the myriad of personnel problems that are facing
the military today, we need to begin by addressing three key issues:
The biggest issue has to be the elimination of the Up and Out policy - this is the leading
factor behind nearly every serious problem the military faces. From where I'm
sitting, it causes the following:
1) Anyone who goes against the system is removed because they won't get promoted,
regardless of who they are and how good they are.
2) Anyone who does not wish to become an officer or NCO (and all the headaches that
entails) is also removed by design.
3) Anyone who is good at what they do will automatically be removed from what they
are doing, either by promotion or by being forced out.
4) Anyone who fails to adequately engage in ticket punching, in lieu of actual
military missions, will be removed by design.
5) Regardless of any rules protecting them, all whistleblowers are removed by
design. They aren't forced out, they simply get a bad rating from the officers they
blow the whistle on.
6) The more ass you kiss, the more incompetent you are, the less effective you are,
the higher you will be promoted by design. All you gotta do is do what you are told
to do and the system will protect and take care of you.
Step one must be to end this ridiculous policy of Up and Out. It is nothing short of
pure insanity in every regard.
The second key shift is a greater reliance on Reserve forces. Here is where you get
the quality adults many desire who are confident, mature, and have outside lives.
They are members of civilian society, they hold real jobs, they know real people.
They are exposed to wide ranges of ideas and concepts that are entirely foreign to
the military. Obviously, Airborne and other first responders will continue to be
active forces but there's no reason for heavier units to be active - it takes longer to
transport their equipment than to get their training up to speed. Relying more on
Reserves also opens up the chance to expand the total size of the force to include some of
the specialty units people are dreaming up because Reserve personnel cost a fraction of
what active personnel cost. Keep the light and specialty forces active, move the
rest to Reserves. You get the added benefit that if the government gets too carried away
with calling up Reserve forces, ALL of the powerful elements within society will turn on
them because they are losing their workforce. Now it isn't somebody bitching - now
we're talking businesses and rich folks who won't contribute to campaigns because the
politicians cost them a fortune in personnel costs for no reason. Want to get
Congress to listen? Hit them in their campaign coffers.
The third key factor is an elimination of the constant shuffling of personnel between
units. For years, we've been doing this because of permanent duty stations in
Germany, Korea, etc. We need to shut these posts down so we can stop the musical
duty station shuffle. It's devastating to unit cohesiveness and to training.
It badly drains institutional knowledge as well. If the personnel want to
move on, let them request it and honor the request when possible, otherwise leave them
where they are at. If nothing else, this particular item will save billions in costs
from unneeded bases and unwanted moves. It also tells you which units are really
messed up as all of the personnel will be requesting to leave. The units that are
REALLY good won't have the requests - another evaluation tool other than the ridiculous
OREs that are generally rigged.
There are a tremendous number of other things that can be changed to improve the force,
but these are definitely the top three. Many will continue to hold romantic dreams
of draftees waging battles against the brass but the unfortunate reality is this: few
things are tougher to deal with than loving someone (or in this case something) that
doesn't love you back. Ultimately draftees will reach the same conclusion that many
within the services have already reached - they can do more good outside the service than
inside. That's no way to run a military.