Now I don't know if R. Lee Ermey actually endorses this post or if his image is being used without permission. Regardless, this is one of those policy ideas that appeals to patriotic Americans on a gut level and is designed to elicit clicks and shouts of "Damn right!" It is also a variant on an idea that gets resurrected from time to time that usually goes by the name of "National Service." And it's a bad idea, both in general and as a means to advance the particular policy goal cited in the post.
The United States military today is among the most proficient in the world man for man. How it stacks up to other first-class militaries cannot really be determined outside of an actual shooting war. It's true that readiness has been suffering under the policies of the Obama administration but American arms are still a force to be reckoned with.
It is almost universally agreed that one of the biggest contributors to the United States' dominance on the battlefield is that every American serviceman is a volunteer. They all chose to leave civilian life, go through rigorous training to earn the right to wear an American uniform and then go through even more training to master their particular specialties. Those at the tip of the spear are there because they volunteered for the toughest training regimes.
A second reason for American military effectiveness is as a clear sense of mission. The United States defense establishment exists to win wars and to deter other nations from starting wars by being demonstrably lethal on the battlefield. Whenever the military is distracted from this singular purpose, it loses some of its battle-readiness.
The American military also dominates because of its clear technological edge over its adversaries, although this technology gap appears to be shrinking. The sophisticated technology deployed by American forces can only be effectively operated and maintained by volunteer professionals, not by conscripts. This was clearly demonstrated during the Cold War years when the sustainability of Soviet naval vessels was severely curtailed because their enlisted crews were too poorly trained to keep modern electronics and weapons systems operational. All maintenance had to be performed by the relatively small number of officers in the crew.
With that in mind, the problems with signing up every American for two years' military service become blindingly obvious. By its own terms, this idea is proposed not to increase military effectiveness, but to create political support for veterans' benefits.
The total number of Americans in uniform today stands at about 1.4 million. There should probably be more, but the sort of universal conscription advocated here is not the answer. In the 2010 census there were just over 30 million Americans between the ages of 18 and 24. With a two-year service requirement we could expect roughly one-third to be in the forces, less those who are physically or otherwise unfit for service. I have no idea how many would ultimately be excluded but lets say, for the sake of argument, that it's 25%. That means roughly 8 million additional bodies wearing army, navy and air force uniforms (I'm assuming the marines would continue to take only volunteers).
What are these 8 million people going to do for two years? Are we going to spend money on advanced technical training that may very well take up the majority of their service commitment, only to see them return to civilian life? Do we expect career officers and NCO's to spend their time babysitting conscripts who are only marking time until they can get back to their real lives?
And the stated purpose of this service requirement, to create a political constituency for veterans' benefits, can only be achieved if we confer benefits on this vast horde of new veterans. That means spending huge sums of money to bring the vast majority of Americans into a massive new dependency class. Because, in the end, all this is is a gigantic new welfare program. And that will not make America great.
No comments:
Post a Comment