Karl Eikenberry on the draft
Some of you know that former Lieutenant General and Ambassdor to Afghanistan Karl Eickenberry was my first platoon leader a lifetime ago. I didn’t like him very much and I’ve made that fact known. Well, he was interviewed in the National Journal recently in regards to the reinstating the draft. He begins by telling about his first unit, before I knew him, when he was a platoon leader in a unit which had draftees recently returned from Vietnam. He tells how pulling staff duty officer required him to carry a loaded firearm on his rounds. I remember those stories, especially from my squad leaders who had been in the 82d Airborne Division during that era.
It’s a very long article, but it’s worth reading the whole thing, if the discussion of whether we should reinstate the draft or not. Eikenberry blames the professionalism of the military on our involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Lt. Col. Eikenberry, a battalion commander in the 10th Mountain Division, again had a serious morale problem on his hands. In contrast to his early days as an officer trying to quell outright rebellion in the ranks, the current headache was that the 10th Mountain had not been deployed for Operation Desert Storm, and those under his command were nearly despondent about not participating in what would prove to be one of the most lopsided military victories in the country’s history.
Eikenberry’s response was to send 10th Mountain units to the Army’s high-tech, force-on-force training centers, where they substituted for units that had deployed unexpectedly to the Persian Gulf War. They responded enthusiastically, and were thus trained to a fine edge when called on to deploy to Somalia a year later. The experience drove home two important points about the military circa the 1990s: that it was one of the best forces the United States had ever fielded, and that, from a political perspective, it was tailor-made for the coming cycle of near-constant deployments.
From a platoon leader in the post-Vietnam Era, to a battalion commander in the post-Desert Storm Era, Eikenberry had witnessed the attitude change among the troops from people who tried to avoid participation in a war to their polar opposite – because of the professional all-volunteer Army. That seems to be a problem somehow.
Eikenberry stops short of advocating for reinstating the draft, but he does blame the disconnect between the folks whose families traditionally join the military and the rest who traditionally find something else to do.
I blame the culture for that. At the beginning of the war against terror, President Bush told us that all we needed to do in order to win the war is continue shopping at the mall. And the slacktivists decided that sticking a yellow ribbon on their bumper fulfilled their patriotic duty to the country.
Now all of the members of society who didn’t take the time out of their lives to actually kill terrorists pat themselves on the back when phonies and criminals pretend to be victims of the wars for their bad choices and the non-military folks use that as an excuse for their own choices. they teach their children to avoid being part of something bigger than themselves.
But, yeah, the draft is a bad idea, at least Eikenberry and I can agree on that. It was tough enough leading volunteers into combat, future leaders don’t need a bunch of Johnny Beas in the ranks.
Category: Military issues
I don’t see the draft as a negative or draftees as too difficult to train or incapable of developing a fighting spirit. And when it comes to ‘proof’ I would say that from among past draftees at war, for every asshole draftee that can be served up, a fighter can be spotlighted. That aside, it is not a necessity (is it?), that draftees be placed in a combat role. What’s the ratio nowadays of support to combat troop, 9:1? My point is that draftees can fulfill many service roles other than as combat troops and that our male and female citizens of age ought to do so.
I’d agree that it could be done if certain MOS’ were limited to draftees but there is still the mindset.
We watch now as politicians try to experiment with military culture as it is, add draftees who would jump at the chance to buck a reg or an order and that would lead to diaster in the ranks. As Jonn said it’s hard enough to lead volunteers let alone someone who views thier life being put on hold.
Yer mellowing, Jonn. That’s the first article I can remember where you didn’t call the man “that dick”. (smile)
There really aren’t any “non-combat” ,mos’s. I read recently that during the time frame we were deployed in Iraq 06-07, we, the mission trucks and gun trucks took more casualties and filled out more serious incident reports than the Infantry did.
That’s because what these guys call “Serious” is what the Infantryman does every fucking day! 🙂
Well as long as the military continues to decline into a family business where current enlistees are most likely to come from a family where someone else has already served the number of people interested in serving as a percentage of population will continue to decline as well.
Where are we at now 1% some smaller fraction of 1%?
When 99% of the population doesn’t serve I can assure that most of those 99% don’t give a flying fuck how the military is used and how veterans are treated because they will never have to suffer the consequences of their apathy.
I will concede that those of you who served 20 or more years know far more about the issue than a lowly 6 enlistee but I wonder how veterans gain any actual political or social clout with the general public when 99% of the population will never understand what your service did to your life or how it affects your outlook.
When the DoD budget represents a significant portion of the national yearly budget and 99% of the population has no real stake in the DoD or its missions you can easily understand how politicians find it easy to reduce staff and budgets.
The draft probably fixes none of that really, but without any real investment from most of the population I don’t see the issues surrounding the lack of participation magically resolving themselves either.
Based on regular comments from most of you here I also don’t expect any of you to start suddenly expecting the government to honor any of the promises it makes to military personnel because the track record thus far is less than stellar.
So what are you proposing in the absence of participation and the absence of honesty from the government to create any sense of responsibility to veterans in that other 99% of the general populace?
That 99% number represents those actually serving. It’s been said that at any given time in history 1% of the population joined the military to protect the other 99% (with statistical bumps for WW2 and to a lesser extent Vietnam). But that number doesn’t represent the veterans community and the families of those who have and are serving. So the number of those with skin in the game greatly increases. That makes for a large and possibly formidable voting block.
Not as formidable as you might think, ArmyATC.
I’ve read elsewhere that there are estimated to be about 22 million total living veterans today. Add the 1.4 million on active duty and the roughly equivalent number in the Reserve Components, and you have less than 25 million.
The US population today is on the order of 319 million. Of that, around 76.7% are of voting age – or roughly 244 million. That means there are roughly 9 nonvet voters for each vet voter.
Vets are also hardly a monolithic voting block.
Hondo: The “military bloc” doesn’t just include current and former military, though. As Army ATC said, it includes anyone who can be expected to vote to boost or support the military, which includes family members, close friends, businesses that rely on the military, their families, etc. Not only that, but the “military bloc” is not spread out evenly, it’s concentrated in certain regions of the country and as such, wields formidable political clout.
It’s kind of like the NRA in that respect. The NRA itself has less than 5 million members – in a country of 300 million plus, that’s a drop in the bucket. But the NRA’s strength does not just come from those who carry NRA cards in their wallets, it comes from those who are sympathetic to the cause that the NRA supports and that can be counted on to listen to the NRA and to vote for candidates the NRA supports and to vote against candidates the NRA opposes, whether they are members or not.
True. But as I noted above, the military/veteran vote is hardly a monolithic one. It tends to be somewhat more conservative than the national average, but not hugely so. That’s particularly true among the younger end of the veteran spectrum. The same is true among their families and acquaintances.
In contrast, the NRA is an advocacy group people voluntarily pay to join. Their support – and vote – should indeed be expected to be monolithic (or near so) on issues of concern.
FWIW: having lived in a number of “military friendly” communities, it was my impression that most of those businesses that depend most heavily on the military for their livelihood couldn’t give a hoot in hell about the people in the military. All they cared about was the money they brought through the door.
Random thought: IF a draft was reinstated, I bet some of the loudest protests would come from the Gilberts (LGBT) who suddenly realized what TRUE equality looks like!
Dead on the square with that comment!
Not to mention, they couldn’t get out by putting on a dress, or by trying to kiss their platoon leader.
Okay, hard question. I read an article the other day that said something like 75% of our young people are ineligible for military service. So what does the military do with a draftee? Ignore the weight, ignore the congenital malformations, ignore the mental illness, ignore the drug abuse, ignore the criminal record? And haven’t the recruiters been meeeting their goals fairly consistently since 9/11?
What in the hell are they playing at with this ‘draft’ business??
When the need for bodies goes up, the standards inevitably get lowered until a balance is found. McNamara’s Band was no real band of brothers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_100,000
Actually had one of those mental midgets as a platoon sergeant in the 80s. He exemplified the NCO=No Chance Outside stereotype. He wasn’t qualified to be a panhandled on the street yet somehow he managed to stay in and get promoted.
It’s a moot question anyway for two reasons: First, because a draft only works when society as a whole supports it, and ours will not. So it’s a non-starter right out of the gate.
Second, a draft army is the kind of army where you pull a bunch of civilians off the street, shave their heads, put them in uniform, spend a few weeks teaching them how to march and shoot a rifle, and then throw them into combat. We don’t fight wars like that anymore. In modern war a half-trained, unmotivated recent civilian is a liability, not an asset.
Let’s not even talk about where we would find the money to build up the military big enough to take in the millions of draftees we would get every year.
All this draft talk is nothing but nostalgia, as well as a case of looking at the past through seriously rose-tinted glasses.
Martinjmpr: I agree that a draft today is probably a political “non-starter”. But I think it’s far from settled whether or not a peacetime draft could support a professional military.
Since World War II, we’ve never drafted “millions” annually – even at the height of Vietnam. During Korea, the draft inducted approx 1.5M (1950-1953)- or around 500k annually on average (it didn’t really ramp up until late 1950). During Vietnam (1964-1972), it inducted approximately 3,775,000 – about 420k annually on average. However, those levels would not be necessary to maintain a peacetime Army of today’s size (or even one somewhat larger).
Between 1954 and 1963 (Cold War), the US had a peacetime draft. It inducted roughly 2,215,000 over 10 years, or approximately 221k annually. The US military was much larger during those years, so any peacetime draft today would be much smaller (100k annually would be my guess) coming from a much larger population. Demographically, it could work.
Couple that with a 3 year tour, and that could sustain a professional force. Indeed, it did for 10 years prior to Vietnam. It also sustained a rapidly-expanding wartime force in Korea before that.
The biggest problem I can see would be maintaining morale, and therein lies the biggest problem. Even with a 3-year hitch, keeping the attention of “short timers” during their last 6 mo of enlistment would be a true challenge. Think the Korea “short timer” attitude everywhere – in spades.
I think we’re much better off with a volunteer force. But it does – as the article points out – have the undesirable side effect of rather disconnecting the military from the rest of society. And dismissing a draft out of hand as “unworkable” for maintaining a professional military force is IMO shortsighted. It could work – or it could fail. It has both worked and failed before.
Since as you observed a draft is a political “non-starter” today, the discussion of a draft is now likely merely theoretical. I doubt we’ll see one again during my lifetime.
Hondo: The million dollar question would be: Would the inevitable problems that a draft causes be any better than the problems it would be enacted to cure? Yes, the civilian world is disconnected from the military, but the reality is that this is the way it was for most of American (in fact, world) history. We have to stop thinking of WWII and the period immediately afterward as “the way it always was.” That period of time was an aberration, a time of national fear and concern about the Nazis, the Japanese, and later about the Commies, that sustained public support for a huge military machine. That simply doesn’t exist these days. And if you go back before WWII, and especially before WWI, you’ll see that the “disconnect” between the military and civil society was considerably larger and considerably more hostile. Military service in the enlisted ranks throughout most of the 19th century was considered something that was suitable only for immigrants, people of low character, or people who otherwise couldn’t find “honest work.” The civil war was the obvious exception because like WWII it was a “total war” at least in the South. Even among officer ranks, military service was generally considered less desirable than most other forms of employment, and like today, the officers of the time were usually the sons of officers already in service – a military caste, then as now. Unless you were a settler on the Western Plains during the various Indian wars, it’s hard to even conceive of a 19th century civilian encountering a soldier in uniform and thanking the soldier for his service (even then by the time the soldiers arrived at an attacked homestead, the Indians were usually long gone.) Those of us who grew up with the Cold War and particularly those of us who grew up under Reagan’s constant exalting of the armed forces are going to need to adjust our expectations and realize that this was not the “norm” in American history, it was a departure from the norm. And we’re going to have to get used to… Read more »
To add a little bit, your “small draft” scenario isn’t going to work because in order for a draft to have the effect of bringing civil society closer to the military, it has to be large enough that it is a common rite of passage for young people (like it was during WWII and during the Cold War.) In that scenario, while it’s true that the draft didn’t get every 18 year old, it got enough of them that when one guy got drafted out of high school, he could count on knowing that a bunch of his high school buddies were probably getting drafted too. This kind of “sharing the burden” makes the draft tolerable.
OTOH, a “small draft” where you are only drafting, let’s say, 1 out of every 1,000 eligible 18 year olds, would be a cruel kind of “negative lottery.”
Imagine how you would feel if you were that one unlucky 18 year old and you got haled into military service while all of your buddies – every single one of them – missed getting hosed by the big green weenie and got to continue their carefree civilian life.
You think we had discipline problems in the 60’s? Imagine how morale is going to be when you’ve got a platoon full of guys like this, knowing that the vast, vast, majority of their peers are drinking and screwing in college somewhere while they’re doing pushups and picking up cigarette butts.
And you better damn well believe that the parents of any young person who wanted to avoid the draft would be doing whatever they could to make their kids “draft ineligible” before their name got put into the giant hat for the drawing.
This, again, means that the burden falls disproportionally on those who lack the means to avoid the draft.
Sorry, but there is no problem in our society that a draft could “fix”, that would not end up creating problems that are orders of magnitude worse.
Martinjmpr: OK, let’s look at your assertion above.
Currently, the US population 15-19 is approx 21M. That means there are approx 2.5M males in the “draft pool” each year.
Since only males are eligible for the draft under current law, that means 1 out of 25 would get called – with a 100% acceptance rate. Given the current number of folks not eligible to serve, we’re more likely to see at least 1 out of 12 called to report for a pre-induction physical. I’d personally expect 1 out of 8.
I don’t know of too many high schools that graduate 12 or fewer students annually.
Regarding your point about less involvement by the military with the rest of the US population during early US history, that falls into the “true but irrelevant” category. Proportionally, the peacetime “standing” US military was a tiny fraction of the US population during pretty much all of our history before World War I. That’s not the case any more; between active/reserve components, we’re talking around 1% of the US population during peacetime.
I’m not arguing for a resumption of the draft. What I am arguing is that ruling a draft out as “unworkable” for any reason other than political infeasibility is premature. The numbers say it could work if necessary.
Hondo, I think you’re fudging the numbers. The fact that not all of the 2.5 million would be eligible doesn’t mean that they disappear from the population. They’re still there, still sitting on their civilian asses and NOT being drafted which just magnifies the level of unfairness to the poor SOB whose number comes up. The unfairness of the draft comes up not in how many people get put into the pool or called to be examined, it’s in the proportion of how many actually are forced into the military compared to the number who are not.
Without a military big enough to absorb a large number of draftees, being drafted becomes not a common rite of passage (as it was in WWII and the post WWII cold war) but an anomaly, an affliction that is going to fall disproportionally on those who don’t have the means ($$) to avoid it.
I mean, c’mon, if Junior gets a football scholarship to State U, you think he’s going to get drafted? Hell no, he’ll have legions of people working to keep him out of the green machine including parents, coaches at both HS and college, doctors, etc.
In fact, I’m pretty sure it was crap like that that was going on at the end of the VN war that caused support for the draft to plummet. Deferments were easy to come by: College, marriage, etc.
Without an existential threat to create a fear of conquest by an enemy, a draft has as much chance of happening as does a “Starship Troopers” kind of setup where civil or military service is a prerequisite for voting or holding office.
No, ineligible doesn’t mean they disappear. But it does mean they get called, are found DQ – and someone else then gets called in their place. That’s how the peacetime draft worked to get a specified number of bodies; it kept going “down the list” of those eligible until enough qualified individuals were found to fill manpower needs. It did that to account for those found initially ineligible plus the number expected to “wash out” during basic.
There’s a simple way to handle the deferment issue: no deferments for anyone in the primary draft window other than to finish senior year of high school. The primary window would be either 1 or 2 years – I’d recommend 1 year, but 2 years might also be workable. That avoids the primary problem of unfair deferrals based on ability to pay for college. It also make sure everyone has “skin in the game” and avoids jerking anyone out of college unexpectedly who’s already started.
FWIW: turns out population demographics in 1960 were different than today. Though the population was much lower, there were nearly as many high school students (9-12) in 1960 (around 18M) as there are today – which in turn means that there were around 2.25M draft eligible males turning 18 that year. So even though we were drafting around 221,000 in 1960, due to the lower reject rate in 1960 I’m guessing about the same number would be called to report today as were called to report then to get the hypothetical 100,000 inductees we’d need today.
Bottom line: the numbers work. The “deferrals aren’t fair” argument can be fixed by eliminating deferrals as noted above – harsh, but 100% completely fair. The number of people tapped to report for an induction exam would be about the same as in 1960 – and would be roughly the same fraction of those graduating from high school as it was in 1960.
Politically salable? Probably not. Best solution? Again: probably not. But from a numbers perspective, it’s workable.
Well, I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree on the numbers.
But apart from that, I’m racking my brain trying to figure out what is the “problem” for which the “solution” is “restart the draft.” With the shrinking of the Armed forces, aren’t recruiters turning people away? Aren’t we booting out people with good records?
Unless we plan on employing them as road gangs to fix our crumbling infrastructure, what is it we need all these bodies to do?
Ol’ Poe knows first-hand about the problems the general recounts about SDO duty in the 82d back in the day. However my view of things is a bit different from his. The need for a sidearm wasn’t due to dangerous draftees but to the militant black movement that was particularly strong at Ft. Bragg at that time.
As a bachelor E-6, the 2d brigade CBR NCO, I was the ranking NCO living in the HHC barracks. I cannot begin to tell you how many times I was awakened at night by the charge of quarters to help him quell racially inspired brawls in the platoon bays. The young black troopers of that time were unbelievably hostile and defiant, be they draftee or volunteer. And unlike the general, neither the CQ nor I carried a sidearm into those platoon bays.
The situation was so bad that for the first time ever in my six years, I had brigade staff officers questioning me about the increasingly open racial animosity that even they were encountering. After I ETS’d from Bragg in 1967, they had actual race riots on post, and on many other military installations which wasn’t widely reported because the federal government tried to keep it hushed up.
http://www.sirnosir.com/timeline/chronology_riots.html
I had some surly and sorry draftee privates but I also had some who made good soldiers. My take is that I’d feel better going into ground combat with an all volunteer unit with draftees fulfilling the REMF role.
Poet…….I too remember those militant days. I remember the “Dap” being done in the chow line. I remember many men of color receiving a “Shaving Profile” for no other reason than they just did not want to shave.
As for the draft, I was one of those draftee’s. The platoon I was a member of was mostly draftee’s. I think given the climate of the Vietnam war, that we were motivated as to the mission we were assigned. I’ve often wondered what the percentage of 11B’s serving in Vietnam were in fact Draftee’s.
I do remember the troops I served with in the bush were across the board pretty sharp. Many had some college, myself included. One guy had even graduated.
Most of the sad sacks, I encountered, were your truck driver types serving in the rear with the gear. No offense to truck drivers!
Probably about 25-30%, 3/17 Air Cav.
Per this source, 25% of those who served in Vietnam were draftees. A slightly higher number – 30% – of the combat deaths were draftees.
What that tells me is that a somewhat higher proportion of those who served in combat units were draftees, but the proportion wasn’t grossly higher.
My guess is that the 5% delta in combat deaths was due to McNamara’s Project 100,000 (which actually inducted over 300,000 individuals before it ended). As I recall, Project 100,000 did send most of its personnel to combat units.
3/17 Air Cav…Ah yes. The good ole days of the “dap”, black bars and taverns off post and white one and the “every black guy wanted one and many had them…shaving wavers”. Go in the wrong bar was taking your teeth if not your life in your hands. The fellow draftees I served with ran the full range from excellent solders who’s hands I put my life into, to worthless POSs I wouldn’t trust to watch my skivvies dry on a bush, much less watch over me while I slept. But most I ran into like that were not the 11B soldiers. Those of us in field, even the malcontents, as 11Bs knew that, like it or not, all our lives depended on each other. In that scenario even the die hard, “don’t want to be here” soldier will ruck up and do their part. It was learned quickly in my stint that, payback is a bitch and can be sudden and unexpected. Don’t cover your buddy…okay. Next time your shit’s left hanging out at the worst time, when at other times, guys would die trying to help save you. You got back what you gave.
As for the draft. I don’t like it. The all volunteer force has been exemplary in every way. Only in the dire case of a terrorist nuke type 9/11 attack and/or a threat to our homeland would I say let’s do the draft. It would be needed then and believe me, everyone would have skin in the game at that point. Until then, just stop cutting back the excellent fighting force we have. Treat those serving and veterans as they deserve to be and bring our force numbers back to a secure level to meet any potential threats.
If enough people in the United States were aware of this:
Far too many people in our population don’t realize that they have a national defense role. :mrgreen”
Anybody know if they intend to include women in the next draft?
THAT would be an eye-opener, by God!
IMO they would have to. And it would be reason no. 1,205,452 that “restarting the draft” can be filed under “things that will never happen in our lifetimes.”
That would require a change to existing Federal law. 50 USC 453 limits Selective Service registration (and thus the draft) to males 18-26.
If memory serves, Federal courts have upheld that restriction in the past. Whether they would do so if/when all military specialties are opened to women is an open question.
I agree with you that such a change is unlikely.
I am always amazed at the ‘pro’ draft turds like Charlie Rangel and the idiot featured in the post. Of course, their children are fully grown and wouldn’t be drafted anyway.
Its as if they want to break or severely inhibit our military capabilities.
The draft was relegated to history to prevent minorities, supposedly over-represented in casualty statistics, and the lower economic class whites from being cannon fodder for an uncaring government. Of course and never mind that two thirds of those who served in Vietnam were those who chose to enlist.
Now we need a draft because only a small percentage of citizens are serving and the hardship isn’t being shared.
Does this make sense to anyone?
Wait a minute guys! Like a lot of you, I was there during that time frame (’69 through ’96, FWIW) and, at the time, we were the best Army in the world despite our problems. Our “experiment” led to the army that could sweep through the desert a few years later! A lot of us didn’t want to be drafted (I lost my deferment after five years of college and went to WOFT) but most everybody did their job and did it well. The problems were caused by drugs and radicalization. Remember Equal Opportunity Training? The military was just as much a victim of political correctness as the society it represented, just at a slower pace. regards, Alemaster
Actually, 25% of those who served in Vietnam were draftees. And they accounted for 30% of combat casualties there – not the majority, as skewed media accounts might lead one to believe.
I’m not positive, but I’d guess McNamara’s Project 100,000 – which actually inducted over 300,000 personnel, and as I recall was heavily skewed towards providing troops for combat arms specialties – is likely what accounts for the somewhat higher number of draftee casualties among combat units. I could be wrong.
http://www.veteranshour.com/vietnam_war_statistics.htm
My # starts with US 527563– if you know what that means. I was drafted in 1967 when to Vietnam 68 to 69 And I was honorable dicharged from the U.S. ARMY So fuck any one who thinks we did not fight with all our heart
and gave it the best we had.