Out-fucking-standing essay here.I can't even begin to summarize it. Yes, it's one man's opinion. Yes, it has a very definate objective - to make you think about the AVF versus a draft, and the issues that revolve around a small, volunteer standing military. Yes, the author has a strong bias, and it shows. No, I don't agree with everything he says.
But IMO the man's observations are spot-on to what I was seeing the the ARNG in the last couple of my years before retirement. He makes some cogent points about the way we procure our soldiers and Marines.
Well worth a read, whether you agree with his point or not.
I think the author could not have been more right in regards to elitism within the military. From day one, you are told you are better than the average citizen. I don't know when this started, but it was well before my time. While I disagree with the elitism in principle (I don't personally feel better than the average citizen, although at one time as a young LT I did), but I wonder what are the negative consequences of this elitism? Isn't there a tendency in all cohesive organizations to view "the other guys" as somewhat lesser? Okay, so what, you have some retired vets who feel that they are owed something, maybe they feel some pride in what they did, but I am missing the real harm here.
ReplyDeleteSomeone please enlighten me, I am sure I am missing something.
Well, BG, the first thing I was told when I was at USMCRD Sand Diego was, "you are a Marine recruit, by rank you assumed the rank of private, but you are not a Marine. You are lower than a Marine Private, and G-d help you, you are lower than a civilian on the evolutionary scale."
ReplyDeleteThe implied statement was that once I became a private, I would be higher on the evolutionary scale than a civilian.
Some very interesting programs that delve into the world of the military recruit traing...as for how it was in the regular force, I have no idea. I was only in boot camp for a couple of months, and most of that was in transit company...which, as I think about it, was a pretty miserable existence.
bg: In discussing the transition of Rome from republic to empire, one of the most significant events most historians point to are the so-called "Marian Reforms" of 107BC.
ReplyDeleteBefore that point the Roman citizen WAS the Army, and, even then, only Romans of some standing could serve. You had to be of a certain social class or higher, and you had to supply your own weapons and other kit.
Marius did three things:
1. He opened the ranks to all, but especially to the "landless men", the capti censi, the poorest of the poor.
2. He changed the terms of enlistment from the duration to a fixed term, usually 16-20 years, and
3. He established land grants for dischared vets.
This created a hell of an Army, but it also transferred the soldiers' loyalties from the state to their officers.
While I don't think that the USA/USMC have gone there, this whole "warrior" business and the increasing separation from and contempt for the civilian U.S. that this Marine discusses are one thing that worries me a LOT about the AVF.
There seems to me to be a hell of a lot of possibility for demagoguery amongst the troops...
My high school class just celebrated our 50th reunion. One of the guys compiled a list of the veterans. 45 of 98 of us served. Of course, the military was larger then, so more room for service. 8 of us served through retirement, one with 2 stars, three as O-6, one O-5 and the rest E-8 or E-9. Keep in mind that we graduated 5 years before Viet Nam began gearing up, so most of us were beyond draft age for that. Those of us who did serve in the RVN years did so voluntarily or as a result of ROTC deferring our entry on active duty to 1964 or so.
ReplyDeleteBut what might be of more significance is that we lived in a rather prosperous, established, upper middle class bedroom suburb of NYC. The veterans from our class went on to be physicians, dentists, lawyers, university professors, scientists, business executives, small business owners as well blue collar workers.
We were not a right wing community by any stretch of the imagination. Military service was simply a natural fact of life, and it was in a large part a result of dealing with the obligation arising from the draft. You could take your chances, or you could exercise a degree of choice via enlistment, ROTC, or the like.
I can't speak for any other town, but I would offer that we contributed some pretty significant talent to the armed forces. 45 men who served honorably. I doubt that similar available talent is being provided from that town today, as it is not a target demographic area for recruiting.
During a bull session over cocktails, the retired 2 star said, "A common high praise one liner for Efficiency Reports was 'I would actively seek this soldier's assignment to any unit I might command'. You know, I would honestly have to say that this would apply to virtually everyone in our class, and definitely all the veterans."
If the AVF has deprived the services of people of the caliber I grew up with, then I see it as a loss. Not only a loss to the services, but the communities to which they returned.
This was a damn fine piece. I'm glad Ricks ran it. I'm not sure Ricks believes it himself. But I'm damn sure glad he ran it and is giving it the publicity it deserves.
ReplyDeleteSo much of the Yellow-Ribbon Hero Worship is actually more personal narcissism masquerading as sympathy and genuine thankfulness. There are still many, many Boomers, now in the back half of life, who pine for and regret their own decisions to purposefully avoid the great contest of their young adulthood. Yellow ribbons are their salve, the ointment they apply liberally to their poor bruised psyches. Of course, for many of these Boomer parents, service by their kids remains an anathema to be avoided at all costs. Especially if they are coming from any sort of professional family. And the kids that do serve? As this young man notes, recruited from those who are trying to live the "American Dream;" those for whom a truly liberal government and society would support in their quest for personal upward mobility.
Our wars continue, senselessly, because so few have any real skin in the game. That is why there is no real (publicly discussed) antiwar movement, why there is no public sacrifice (bonds, taxes, rationing), why there is no outcry except from the anguished families of the maimed and dead.
No, only fiscal and/or physical military exhaustion will end the wars.
RP
(once Serving Patriot)
Good catch Chief. I found myself in basic agreement with this young former Marine. My view: misplaced optimism, sadly to say.
ReplyDeleteAl, my HS graduating class recently had our 35th, I was one of tops five of 100 total men and women who had served at all. No retirees.
Earlier our county, averaging around 8,000 population over the years, had suffered 7 dead in WWI, 41 dead in WWII, 3 in Korea and 8 in Vietnam. Nobody has been added to the list from Iraq or Afghanistan that I know of.
Something's changed.
I might clarify. That was 45 of 98 males that had served.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing I should note is that when I joined in the early Eighties there were still a fairly good number of former draftees among the senior NCO corps. These guys, Vietnam vets, most of them, brought a certain attitude that I still think of as the "draftee mentality"; a lack of patience with the worst kinds of military chickenshit, and the overall demand to get on with the job the most effective way possible, never mind whatever goofy nonsense desired at the echelons above reality. Being career soldiers they had to comply, of course, but they made a definate distinction between "things we do because they save lives and kill enemies" and "things we do because the post commander has a hard-on about them". As time passed, and so did they, I found more and more NCOs willing to buy into the horseshit - not just go along with it, but believe it, really absorb the party line. I think that has a LOT to do with losing the freah blood from the outside that the draftees brought with them.
ReplyDeleteJust my opinion, mind. But I think we're losing something important by turning the military in on itself.
Chief-
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to compare what made people choose a military career (or just initial service) during the years of conscription and today. I had classmates in flight school who were admittedly "one step ahead of the draft" and simply wanted a better paying, less muddy experience, and were lucky enough to qualify for direct enlistment for Warrant Officer Flight Training. No interest in service beyond the requited 4 year total. Turned out to be fine aviators and solid officers. Several ended up staying in for 20 or more. Would these guys have even considered a military career without the draft "assisting" their decision making? Probably not.
If I were to generalize about the junior officers (Army) who entered during the draft years, I would say that they were a bit more "clinical" than gung-ho versus those with whom I served in the post draft years. Here I'm talking about years 7 and later in my career.
In the Corps (years 1 thru 6), we were indeed gung-ho elitists, but much more about our tradesmanship and history versus the other services than seeing ourselves apart from society. Our ranks were filled with a pretty representative cross section of society, as for many of us, it wasn't a choice between a uniform or not, but which uniform.
Most significant, IMHO, is that the REASONS for entering the military during the draft years were profoundly different than today, and consequently WHO entered the military had to have been profoundly different. And WHO enter the military determines WHO STAYS in the military, and WHY. And WHO STAYS in the military and WHY they are there significantly impacts the collective mindset of the military.
One mistake many make is to accept the concept that we are better off because all the folks in uniform "want" to be there. Some of the finest servicemembers I served with didn't "want" to be there. There were simply "willing" to be there. The "unwilling" either evaded the draft or spent their two years as yardbirds, if they lasted that long. Draftees were not a significant discipline problem in my experience.
(cont)
As to the quality of draftees, let me offer an anecdote. It's the most memorable, but far from the only memorable one. Will call the soldier "Joe".
ReplyDeleteJoe was a brilliant student, graduating high schol just after his 17th birthday. Went on to CalTech to study electronics, graduating Summa cum Laude. While at CalTech, he spent his summers and one semester of internship at Litton Industries. Of course, Litton hired him as a project engineer immediately upon graduation from Cal Tech. About a year later, Joe get's his draft notice, and since he's not working in a deferred job, he's drafted.
Of course Joe scores well on his tests, so the Army, in typical wisdom, takes his high technical ability into account, and off he goes from basic training to Aviation Hydraulics Mechanic school. From school, he's sent to RVN and ends up in our Chinook unit. Maintenance Officer looks at Joe's credentials and asks if he would prefer avionics over hydraulics, as we needed an avionics guy more than a hydraulics guy at the time. Joe says he'll do what's best for the unit, so off he goes to the avionics shop.
A couple of days later, the shop NCO tells the Maint Off that Joe has looked at the various systems on the Hook says he can do depot level work if we want him to. Only stumbling block would be parts and diagnostic equipment, but he figured he could get a fair amount of the necessary components from buddies at Litton. The shop NCO figures the rest can be scrounged locally. Maint Off says to go for it.
Between Joe's buddies at Litton mailing components from the States (was amazing what could be done via MARS radio), some horse trading with the overworked depot level unit supporting us, and trading beautifully plaque mounted AK-47s for USAF diagnostic/test equipment (oscilloscope, RF signal generators, etc) Joe is now able to keep all of our avionics in exquisite shape, as well as provide some limited rebuild support for other units in our battalion. All very irregular and not authorized, but very, very effective.
Comes the end of Joe's one year in RVN, and he tells the Maint off that since he has only 5 months left on his enlistment, he'd like to just finish it where he was, rather than end up in a hydraulic slot in the States at best, or a holding company at worst.
Joe stayed on until time to ETS. Then back to Litton, stayed in touch with the unit via MARS, and would continue send components until there was no longer someone competent to use them.
Now, avionics could be a nightmare. The DECCA navigation system was so difficult to maintain that most units simply removed it from their aircraft. We consistently had 14 of 16 systems fit for service, and since we always had two or three of our 16 birds in maintenance at any one time, 14 was more than enough. I never flew an aircraft that had less than 100% avionics capability.
Had there not been a draft, would Joe have ever signed up? Very doubtful. Was Joe the only draftee soldier who contributed far above the expected norm? Very doubtful.
In short, the draft, and/or motivation by the draft, did provide a lot of very fine troops. And I doubt that we saw the same level of alienation from the society we were sworn to serve as in the AVF.
The technical evolution of the battlefield has changed the needs of the military.
ReplyDeleteIn the past, you could make an effective soldier and still get useful service from them with a two or three year term.
Today, the technology and training requirements mean that a "death technician" needs a couple years to become actually useful. The cost of training everyone for 2 years just to let them go would impose a huge structural strain to the forces.
We can't draft everyone for a 5 year term so will have to live with people who want to do it for a living (and not as an interruption to their lives)
Besides, it is involuntary servitude.
Ael: Nonsense.
ReplyDeleteYou can't tell me that being a soldier has changed that much in the five years since I retired. I went from plotting boards to charts and darts, from there to the BUCS, from there to BCS, and I was in the process of transiting to AFATADS when I retired. During that time I took in probably a dozen troops right out of Basic. Within three months I had them trained up to process a fire mission to Army standard with a two-week AT's worth of training.
And what I did with my Guardsmen? That happens all over the forces. This "we can't train a new troop every two years"? You DO train a new troop every two years, unless gomer is so fucking stupid he's still a PFC after two years. And you know as well as I do that right now if you have a pulse you make E-5 in your first term. So after three years he's not doing the same job - he's an NCO training...guess what - a new troop to do his old job.
The U.S. Army did just fine for thirty years with a draft. WW2, Korea, Vietnam? We didn't disgrace ourselves in those little scuffles, and we fought the big leaguers, too; no Panamanians, Grenadians, Iraqis or Afghans there. The battlefield was just as dangerous then, too. Probably even moreso, in fact - when was the last time the Panamanian Luftwaffe strafed an American troop unit, or a U.S. infantry company had to hunker down under an Afghan heavy artillery battalion seven?
I'll agree that it's involuntary servitude - in the same sense that paying taxes is a sort of legal robbery - but I'd argue that it is a servitude that benefits both the nation and the citizen.
We're talking smack here; there isn't going to be a draft again for a long time, if ever. But to argue against it you're going to need better reasoning than "war is too complicated" - it's not - and "the draft is involuntary servitude" - it is, but sometimes democracy needs its servants, and the citizens need to serve.
ael-
ReplyDeleteThree thoughts on 2 years being too short.
Two year enlistment options were offered this past decade to help overcome recruiting shortages.
The end of the draft was for political purposes (Nixon campaign promise) not for readiness purposes.
During the draft years, many enlisted for 3 or 4 years to exert some influence over their MOS selection. Typically the more "exotic" MOS's were more heavily staffed with longer term enlistees.
But, as FDChief states, if the draft was unpopular during the Viet Nam years, primarily amongst anti-war folks, it would be even more so today when the bumper sticker patriots are added to the mix. During the 60's, you were a good citizen by simply accepting your draft notice, serving your 2 years honorably and getting on with your life. Today you are a patriot by avoiding military service and promoting war.
"" no involuntary servitude". 13th amenment. As a wise man once told me, either we're for freedom or not. Either we is or we ain't. Either we're a nation of law , or not. If you don't like that amendment, then the constitutional path to overturn it is clear. (However, I do get the arguments for the draft). For defense, a small cadre of pros, with vols., is more than enough. That's ALL i'm interested in. For empire, not so. Stop all foreign aid/entanglements/involvement. Anyone so inclined can either donate monetarily , or physically join any foreign insurgency or coin movement. Just don't involve me.
ReplyDelete