Let's Draft Our Kids...

Nov 29, 2006
15,908
4,486
136
Let’s Draft Our Kids

By THOMAS E. RICKS

Published: July 9, 2012




IN late June, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the former commander of international forces in Afghanistan, called for reinstating the draft. “I think if a nation goes to war, every town, every city needs to be at risk,” he said at the Aspen Ideas Festival. “You make that decision and everybody has skin in the game.”


Ross MacDonald


For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.



This was the first time in recent years that a high-profile officer has broken ranks to argue that the all-volunteer force is not necessarily good for the country or the military. Unlike Europeans, Americans still seem determined to maintain a serious military force, so we need to think about how to pay for it and staff it by creating a draft that is better and more equitable than the Vietnam-era conscription system.

A revived draft, including both males and females, should include three options for new conscripts coming out of high school. Some could choose 18 months of military service with low pay but excellent post-service benefits, including free college tuition. These conscripts would not be deployed but could perform tasks currently outsourced at great cost to the Pentagon: paperwork, painting barracks, mowing lawns, driving generals around, and generally doing lower-skills tasks so professional soldiers don’t have to. If they want to stay, they could move into the professional force and receive weapons training, higher pay and better benefits.

Those who don’t want to serve in the army could perform civilian national service for a slightly longer period and equally low pay — teaching in low-income areas, cleaning parks, rebuilding crumbling infrastructure, or aiding the elderly. After two years, they would receive similar benefits like tuition aid.

And libertarians who object to a draft could opt out. Those who declined to help Uncle Sam would in return pledge to ask nothing from him — no Medicare, no subsidized college loans and no mortgage guarantees. Those who want minimal government can have it.

Critics will argue that this is a political non-starter. It may be now. But America has already witnessed far less benign forms of conscription. A new draft that maintains the size and the quality of the current all-volunteer force, saves the government money through civilian national service and frees professional soldiers from performing menial tasks would appeal to many constituencies.

Others argue that the numbers don’t add up. With an average cohort of about four million 18-year-olds annually, they say, there is simply no place to put all these people. But the government could use this cheap labor in new ways, doing jobs that governments do in other countries but which have been deemed too expensive in this one, like providing universal free day care or delivering meals to elderly shut-ins. And if too many people applied for the 18-month military program, then a lottery system could be devised — the opposite of the 1970s-era system where being selected was hardly desirable. The rest could perform nonmilitary national service.
A final objection is the price tag; this program would cost billions of dollars. But it also would save billions, especially if implemented broadly and imaginatively. One reason our relatively small military is hugely expensive is that all of today’s volunteer soldiers are paid well; they often have spouses and children who require housing and medical care.
Unmarried conscripts don’t need such a safety net. And much of the labor currently contracted out to the private sector could be performed by 18-year-olds for much less. And we could raise the retirement age for the professional force from 20 to 30 years of service. There is no reason to kick healthy 40-year-olds out of the military and then give them full retirement pay for 40 years. These reforms would greatly reduce both recruiting and pension costs.

Similarly, some of the civilian service programs would help save the government money: Taking food to an elderly shut-in might keep that person from having to move into a nursing home. It would be fairly cheap to house conscript soldiers on closed military bases. Housing civilian service members would be more expensive, but imaginative use of existing assets could save money. For example, V.A. hospitals might have space.
The pool of cheap labor available to the federal government would broadly lower its current personnel costs and its pension obligations — especially if the law told federal managers to use the civilian service as much as possible, and wherever plausible. The government could also make this cheap labor available to states and cities. Imagine how many local parks could be cleaned and how much could be saved if a few hundred New York City school custodians were 19, energetic and making $15,000 plus room and board, instead of 50, tired and making $106,329, the top base salary for the city’s public school custodians, before overtime.

The savings actually might be a way of bringing around the unions representing federal, state and municipal workers, because they understand that there is a huge budget crunch that is going to hit the federal government in a few years. Setting up a new non-career tier of cheap, young labor might be a way of preserving existing jobs for older, more skilled, less mobile union workers.

But most of all, having a draft might, as General McChrystal said, make Americans think more carefully before going to war. Imagine the savings — in blood, tears and national treasure — if we had thought twice about whether we really wanted to invade Iraq.

Thomas E. Ricks, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, is the author of the forthcoming book “The Generals: American Military Command From World War II to Today.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/opinion/lets-draft-our-kids.html?_r=2

Friend sent me this and im not really sure what to think about it. I was in the Navy for 4 years voluntarily.

I can see some of the money savings they talk about, but i just dont have a great feeling about what this guy says. I dont get how this would make the Gov think twice about going to war as claimed.

Your thoughts?
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
It would turn into a boondoggle. Millions of 18-year olds being where they don't want to be supervised by people who'd probably rather not deal with them. Also, this free college for everyone thing is nonsense. Our country's problem is that too many people go to college for educations of very dubious value.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
A lot of it is not even about the military.

Setting up a new non-career tier of cheap, young labor might be a way of preserving existing jobs for older, more skilled, less mobile union workers.

hmm. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
> I dont get how this would make the Gov think twice about going to war as claimed.

I don't either. With this plan you still must volunteer to join the "real" military as opposed to the draftees working as part of the minimum-wage support staff.

Other countries have real military service including weapons training and deployment, this is an odd half-step towards that.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
I say put the kids of those who vote for wars of aggression in the first wave.
Lets see some real American heroism.
Dick Cheneys grandkids need to avenge their grandpas 37 exemptions.
 

CaptainGoodnight

Golden Member
Oct 13, 2000
1,427
30
91
From: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/07/thomas_rickss_f.html
In late June, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the former commander of international forces in Afghanistan, called for reinstating the draft. "I think if a nation goes to war, every town, every city needs to be at risk," he said at the Aspen Ideas Festival. "You make that decision and everybody has skin in the game."
This was the first time in recent years that a high-profile officer has broken ranks to argue that the all-volunteer force is not necessarily good for the country or the military. Unlike Europeans, Americans still seem determined to maintain a serious military force, so we need to think about how to pay for it and staff it by creating a draft that is better and more equitable than the Vietnam-era conscription system.

This is from Thomas E. Ricks, "Let's Draft Our Kids," New York Times, July 9.
I don't have time to criticize all the mistaken and or woolly thinking in his target-rich op/ed. I will note two things, though.

First, by quoting McChrystal up-front and never gainsaying his statement, Ricks pretty clearly agrees with McChrystal that, with a draft, "everybody has skin in the game." That's the opposite of the truth. The draft allows the government to shift the cost of manning the military from the taxpayer in general to the draftee. Economists for the Gates Commission in 1969 and 1970 estimated that the implicit tax on draftees, average not marginal, was over 50%. The way to have everybody have "skin in the game" is with general taxes to pay for war, not with taxes that single out people who are "unlucky" enough to be young and healthy.

Second, Ricks states:
And libertarians who object to a draft could opt out. Those who declined to help Uncle Sam would in return pledge to ask nothing from him -- no Medicare, no subsidized college loans and no mortgage guarantees. Those who want minimal government can have it.

Do you see the "the hell with you" tone he has? It seems pretty clear that he's not taking objections from libertarians very seriously. First, it wouldn't be only libertarians who object. The draft issue is a quintessentially libertarian issue: who owns your body, after all? But you don't have to be a libertarian to object to the draft. Second, is he actually saying that the only way you can get out of the draft is by giving up all the benefits of the welfare state but none of the other costs, such as the taxes that pay for them? I think so.
Finally, although Ricks doesn't say it in the op/ed (although he comes close in the last paragraph), I think Ricks's argument, and McChrystal's, is essentially that when the rich and powerful have their kids drafted, they'll suddenly start paying critical attention to foreign policy. I used to accept this argument. That didn't make me favor the draft because I always thought it was profoundly unfair--even uncivilized--to put millions of innocent people in involuntary servitude so that their parents would become politically active.

But fairness and civilization aside, the argument doesn't stand on its own grounds, as Chad W. Seagren and I have shown here.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
I think the only part of that I liked was letting libertarians opt out of the government like they always claim they want to, but then they have to opt out of all of it which despite their claims they REALLY don't want to.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
I think the only part of that I liked was letting libertarians opt out of the government like they always claim they want to, but then they have to opt out of all of it which despite their claims they REALLY don't want to.

It sounds like they would only be able to opt out of the benefits, but have to keep the costs. I wonder why Libertarians would not go for that :rolleyes:
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,413
14,817
146
It would turn into a boondoggle. Millions of 18-year olds being where they don't want to be supervised by people who'd probably rather not deal with them. Also, this free college for everyone thing is nonsense. Our country's problem is that too many people go to college for educations of very dubious value.

I enlisted and went to Vietnam where I served with quite a few draftees. You're right in that they don't want to be there...and it's a PITA for everyone else, BUT, when the shit hits the fan, they USUALLY do what's needed.

I agree with Gen. McChrystal, in that by having a draft that doesn't allow the kinds of exceptions we saw during Vietnam, (rich kids exempted, politicians kids exempted, college deferments, etc.) we all "have skin in the game," and HOPEFULLY, those who make the decisions will be a bit less "gung-ho" about sending our youth to fight and die.

Of course, our political system is so corrupted by money that the politicians will still find a way to get exemptions/deferments for their kids and the children of their supporters..

One more thing...I DON'T agree with re-instating the draft...except, perhaps in the case of actual national defense.
It just doesn't work well enough.
 

Arglebargle

Senior member
Dec 2, 2006
892
1
81
The draft is un-American. It was only in the 1950s that the US implemented a full on peace time draft. The Civil War draft riots in New York reportedly killed more people than the first battle of Bull Run.

McChrystal's point about a draftee army perhaps putting the breaks on military adventurism might be true, but the cost is too high, imo. Also, the wealthy and well connected would find ways to get out of it, as they always have.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
I'm all for it, and always have been. Been advocating for it for years. If you search old posts on here you'll find it said more than once.
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
I enlisted and went to Vietnam where I served with quite a few draftees. You're right in that they don't want to be there...and it's a PITA for everyone else, BUT, when the shit hits the fan, they USUALLY do what's needed.

Except the kind of national service that the article is talking isn't really the same as the Vietnam era draft.

These conscripts would not be deployed but could perform tasks currently outsourced at great cost to the Pentagon: paperwork, painting barracks, mowing lawns, driving generals around, and generally doing lower-skills tasks so professional soldiers don’t have to. If they want to stay, they could move into the professional force and receive weapons training, higher pay and better benefits.

Sure they'll nominally be in the military but everyone will know that they're just doing busywork. You can be sure 95% of them would sit around and do almost nothing. It'll be a sick joke.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,413
14,817
146
Except the kind of national service that the article is talking isn't really the same as the Vietnam era draft.



Sure they'll nominally be in the military but everyone will know that they're just doing busywork. You can be sure 95% of them would sit around and do almost nothing. It'll be a sick joke.


Yeah, I get that...and I still think it would be a bad idea. Having draftees mow lawns and do busywork seems...ineffective at best.

Now if you wanted to talk about compulsory national service...I'm open to that discussion.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Every 6 months to a year another lefty Democrat comes up with the idea to reinstate the draft, usually for 2 reasons, they think it will energize an anti-war effort and they love the idea of forcing fellow citizens to perform some sort of service. Nothing new here just another authoritarian lefty.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
How about any parent that wants to wage an aggressive war must volunteer one son or daughter to fight in the front lines?
 

KB

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 1999
5,406
389
126
A lot of it is not even about the military.



hmm. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.

I would agree. It sounds like the Pentagon wants some cheap labor. Poor Pentagon can't get H1B visas or illegal immigrants to the mundane stuff.
 

Arglebargle

Senior member
Dec 2, 2006
892
1
81
Every 6 months to a year another lefty Democrat comes up with the idea to reinstate the draft, usually for 2 reasons, they think it will energize an anti-war effort and they love the idea of forcing fellow citizens to perform some sort of service. Nothing new here just another authoritarian lefty.

Because the draft has always been such a liberal democrat favorite?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
The way to have everybody have "skin in the game" is with general taxes to pay for war...

I think he's right about a 'war tax'. Before passing the Amendment for income taxes, I'm pretty sure we used to fund wars with a straight up 'war tax'.

I'm not sure how having people in the military who just drive generals around or paint barracks etc. amounts to having any skin in the game. From the sound of it they wouldn't be fighting.

Fern
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
A few things are unmentioned here. We had a good and growing antiwar movement starting around 1965, fueled mainly by the draft. Once President Noxin ( Noxin is Nixon spelled backwards ) ended the drat early in his first term, that antiwar movement largely fizzled out.

And now we are in danger of losing a national asset, in our military reserve system. An asset to any nation who suddenly really needs to transition from a small peace time army when the nation is really threatened. The USA was really woefully unprepared prior to WW1 and WW2, its set the USA way back, and if we had a strong military reserve system then, the USA would have been war ready a year or so earlier. But now when we heavily rely on our weekend warriors and send them off to be Canon Fodder in optional quagmires, like Iraq and Afghanistan. Very few young people in their right mind will sign up for the national reserve.

Its just a variant of our Presidents and Congressmen, being the little boys who cried wolf. After endless no need quagmires, that cost us only blood and treasure, and gain us nothing, will anyone believe them if there is a genuine need?
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Because the draft has always been such a liberal democrat favorite?

Try looking up who's been pushing for it to be reinstated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900376_pf.html

http://www.classbrain.com/artfree/publish/article_213.shtml

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1006531,00.html

Please excuse the one weird link, i didn't feel like searching for more fucking loser Democrats and their attempts at reinstating the draft.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
How about any parent that wants to wage an aggressive war must volunteer one son or daughter to fight in the front lines?

Only if everyone who says abortion should be legal allows one of their children to be killed.

Yeah, both are dumb ideas.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,774
0
76
I think rather than telling our kids to go kill people we should draft a new vision for our government. Being at constant war around the globe is only going to end badly for us eventually and is not what we should strive to be remembered for. This country is far too accepting with military action on foreign soil.
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,908
4,940
136
There was nothing at all wrong with the draft. Why get rid of it in the first place? Ever since it's inception the job creators and their children who were destined for leadership could pass on the death and slaughter, all while the less desirables of the caste could fight the battles and die off. It was win-win. With a draft those with the right pull and connections can be spared for more important things like leadership and CEO positions while the rest of the dreg can have a taste of some actual work.