|
Before 9/11, the
draft was a five
letter word that
no thinking
politician would
utter in public.
Now, fear of a
broken Army is
causing
politicians of
all stripes as
well as
bureaucrats in
the Pentagon to
rethink the
issue. The draft
would fill the
ranks with cheap
and plentiful
men and women.
No wonder the
idea is gaining
ground.
I’ve served in
both a drafted
and a
professional
Army. There is
no comparison.
Professionals
make much better
soldiers for
many reasons.
Choosing to
serve begins the
process of
making a soldier
a member of a
calling, a band
of brothers that
demands far more
from a young man
or woman than
putting in time.
Warfare has
become so
complex and
demanding that
just two years
of short service
is not enough to
make a competent
soldier. The
“Willie and Joe”
generation
carried a rifle
for Uncle Sam.
Today’s soldiers
are required to
fight to be
sure, but they
also must learn
to interact with
alien cultures,
to be builders,
advisors and
trainers.
In past wars,
soldiers relied
on leaders to
make key life
and death
decisions for
them. Today, a
young soldier
standing guard
at a checkpoint
in Baghdad often
must make a
split second
life altering
decision –
alone. Wrong
decisions have
strategic
consequences, as
we’ve seen so
often in Iraq
and
Afghanistan.
Making soldiers
good at crisis
decisionmaking
takes time and
requires
soldiers who
have the “right
stuff.”
Soldiers like
these cannot be
massed produced
in a few weeks
of basic
training. Good
soldiers like
good wine take
time to mature.
America’s great
wartime
vulnerability is
dead soldiers,
and the enemy
knows it. Ask
any professional
soldier and he
will tell you
that long
service
professionals
fight more
effectively and
are far less
likely to die in
combat than
amateurs.
Those who call
for a renewal of
the draft
proclaim that
the social and
racial
inequities of
the Vietnam era
draft would not
happen again.
The realities of
how wars are
fought make such
pronouncements
nonsense. In
the two
draft-era wars
fought since the
end of World War
II. four out of
five service
members who died
at the hands of
the enemy were
infantrymen, a
group that
comprises less
than 4% of those
in uniform.
There is no way
that a draft
could fairly
discriminate
between those
who are likely
to die and those
who aren’t.
Infantry units
in a drafted
Army would be
comprised
overwhelmingly
of draftees,
most of them
poor,
disadvantaged
and collectively
incapable of
dealing with the
complexities of
modern war.
But can we fill
the ranks given
the reluctance
of America’s
youth to join in
wartime? Yes we
can if we are
willing to
accept a
peacetime rather
than a wartime
system of
recruiting:
Pay soldiers for
risk as well as
skill.
Private security
firms in Iraq
have no problem
finding good
quality
volunteers
because they are
willing to pay
handsomely for
the risk. In
today’s
military, a
computer
programmer in
the Pentagon
makes a great
deal more than
an infantryman
humping a 100
pound rucksack
in 130 degree
Iraqi heat. No
wonder
infantrymen are
hard to recruit
and keep.
Lately, the
Pentagon has
tried to solve
the problem by
offering
substantial
recruiting
bonuses. Bonuses
are bribes.
Increased pay
over the course
of a career is
an investment.
Those who
continually go
into harm’s way
should also be
allowed to
retire earlier.
Selling back
three years for
each year in a
close combat
unit would be
about right. In
such a scheme,
an infantry
soldier would be
able to return
to civilian life
before his
psyche or his
body is broken.
Recruit
foreigners.
For millennia,
great powers
have allowed
indigenous
soldiers in
their ranks. To
this day. the
British Army
retains Ghurka
regiments from
Nepal and the
French Army
still has its
Foreign Legion –
both highly
respected and
competent
fighting
formations.
During the Cold
War we recruited
special forces
soldiers from
Eastern Europe
and later from
Cuba because
their intimate
knowledge of
prospective
theaters of war
could not be
replicated from
the general
population. We
could leverage
the power of
citizenship as
an inducement
for filling the
ranks with young
men who are
intimately
familiar with
places like
Africa and the
Middle East.
Increase the
numbers of close
combat soldiers.
Recruiting more
fighters to
retain those
whom we need
most would give
those most
likely to die
time to recover
between
deployments to
reconnect with
their loved ones
before returning
to combat. More
time at home
would be a long
term investment
that would
prevent
experienced
soldiers from
voting with
their feet.
Were we to be so
foolish as to
return to the
draft we would
bring back an
Army of
amateurs. The
Army that we see
performing so
magnificently in
Iraq and
Afghanistan
would be a thing
of the past.
Surely a nation
of 300 million
should be able
to recruit and
retain the very
few long service
professionals we
must have to
fight our wars.
--###--
Robert H. Scales
spent 30 years
in the Army,
retiring at the
rank of Major
General as
Commandant of
the U.S. Army
War College.
The author of
two books and a
senior military
analyst for Fox
News, he is
currently the
President of
Colgen, LP, a
consulting firm
specializing in
issues relating
to landpower,
wargaming and
strategic
leadership.
|
