Maintaining a Combat-Ready Military Force
How the United States proposes to sustain manning levels in its Armed Forces is a long term subject that will be addressed in this blog.
The Mutiny Bill of 1806, debated in the British House of Commons, contained inducements for new men to enlist in service in the British Army. The parliamentary proceedings were transcribed to form the content of our first blog. The proposed benefits would not go to the regular soldiers already in that Army. The basic objective was to increase the size of Britain’s Army, and a reason given in one colloquy was to be able to leverage Britain’s already superior Navy. Britain needed to maintain or even enlarge its Empire. The nasty business of the American Revolution was just past, though interestingly France was mentioned frequently in the debate on the Mutiny Bill while the nascent United (13) States was not mentioned at all.
Fast forward to 1941. The United States extended the Selective Service Act (draft) in August 1941 by the margin of one vote in the U.S. House of Representatives! The draft, or conscription as it has sometimes been called, for service beyond the land within our shores or borders, goes back in U.S. history to World War I. Draftees provided the overwhelming complement of servicemen that fought for the United States in both World War I and II. The country fought World War II with manpower conscripted through an Act of Congress in a nation that was sharply divided when that draft extension was passed.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower, on becoming President in 1953, brought up the subject of Universal Military Training (UMT). Like George W. Bush with “private accounts” as part of Social Security, no amount of selling was going to launch UMT. The idea died with Ike.
The draft sustained our armed force levels into Korea and lasted through the war in Vietnam. 58,000 lost their lives in the Viet Nam “conflict,” mostly draftees. Opinion writers in newspapers, magazines and on radio and TV, time and again cited disparity in sacrifice, noting that poor men and black men for the most part lacked reasons like college attendance or medical school enrollment for obtaining draft deferments.
One of my sons enlisted and went to Vietnam. His draft call was due to arrive at the time he went downtown and enlisted. Another son enlisted and was sent to Germany. Draftee and Enlistee are terms that fall short when the cries of unequal sacrifice are raised in debate. Some columnists have used, or passed along, language that denigrates draftees. “Sometimes surly draftees” were words used by a columnist in the Wall Street Journal in 1997. “..we are free from sniveling draftees..” was a phrase used by a popular syndicated columnist in 1999 in a column related to sending troops to Kosovo.
While a Selective Service System that required male high school graduates to enter their names on a list was put in place after Vietnam, the “draft” itself was abolished in 1973 and the U.S. went to the “all volunteer Army.” Volunteers would henceforth provide the fighting men for the United States.
This manning provision has been maintained through “actions” in Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, the Balkans, Somalia, an air strike on Libya, a major deployment called Desert Storm (followed by 11 years of ‘no-fly’ zone air patrols over Iraq), a barracks destruction in Saudi Arabia, embassy destructions in Tanzania and Kenya, cruise missile firings into Afghanistan and Sudan, and first and second World Trade Center terror acts in Manhattan. More might be cited but those make quite a ‘busy’ list.
Our sea, air and ground attacks into Afghanistan and then Iraq have now opened a debate on the volunteer Army’s capacities. Again, op-ed voices like those that had raised the issue of unequal sacrifice made by the poor in the Vietnam conflict are raising the same issue relative to service, now of potential careerists in a volunteer Army or National Guard or Reserve. No matter how the U.S. provides for military manpower, a sustained message in our public press moves toward “hell no, we won’t go,” a cry we are on the verge of hearing again. Our “standing army” may eventually be vested in our Customs’ border guards.
Many, with the notable exception of a Secretary of Defense who has accomplished much with “transformation,” a process that has proved necessary but not sufficient, are now concerned that we do not have enough “boots on the ground” to support the objectives the President undertook, with the support of Congress, on two overseas fighting fronts. And like the Brits in their 1806 Mutiny Bill, the U.S. is offering potential volunteers inducements that were not offered to the career regulars when they volunteered. This inducements effort is aimed at meeting volunteer-Army quotas presently allowed by U.S. law, and does not address any increase in size of our standing Army.
Who will be ‘asked to sacrifice’ is emerging once again to the level of active debate in the United States. In the process, all prior tried or considered ideas will be re-floated, including a draft, and UMT. And yes, those arguments in the British House of Commons 200 years ago are relevant. An end game is that no one will be asked to sacrifice. We might simply turn to the UN for help.
In The Republican, Springfield Massachusetts’ morning paper, edition of June 28, 2005, Op Ed writer Bob Herbert leads his column with “The all-volunteer Army is not working.” The Republican’s headline writer announced the piece with, “Who will we send to fight our wars?
On of my favorite hymns is composer Dan Schutte’s, “Here I Am, Lord.” One line goes, “Finest bread I will provide, till their hearts be satisfied, I will give my life to them, Whom shall I send?” The answer comes in the refrain; “Here I am Lord, …., I will go Lord….”
The Mutiny Bill of 1806, debated in the British House of Commons, contained inducements for new men to enlist in service in the British Army. The parliamentary proceedings were transcribed to form the content of our first blog. The proposed benefits would not go to the regular soldiers already in that Army. The basic objective was to increase the size of Britain’s Army, and a reason given in one colloquy was to be able to leverage Britain’s already superior Navy. Britain needed to maintain or even enlarge its Empire. The nasty business of the American Revolution was just past, though interestingly France was mentioned frequently in the debate on the Mutiny Bill while the nascent United (13) States was not mentioned at all.
Fast forward to 1941. The United States extended the Selective Service Act (draft) in August 1941 by the margin of one vote in the U.S. House of Representatives! The draft, or conscription as it has sometimes been called, for service beyond the land within our shores or borders, goes back in U.S. history to World War I. Draftees provided the overwhelming complement of servicemen that fought for the United States in both World War I and II. The country fought World War II with manpower conscripted through an Act of Congress in a nation that was sharply divided when that draft extension was passed.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower, on becoming President in 1953, brought up the subject of Universal Military Training (UMT). Like George W. Bush with “private accounts” as part of Social Security, no amount of selling was going to launch UMT. The idea died with Ike.
The draft sustained our armed force levels into Korea and lasted through the war in Vietnam. 58,000 lost their lives in the Viet Nam “conflict,” mostly draftees. Opinion writers in newspapers, magazines and on radio and TV, time and again cited disparity in sacrifice, noting that poor men and black men for the most part lacked reasons like college attendance or medical school enrollment for obtaining draft deferments.
One of my sons enlisted and went to Vietnam. His draft call was due to arrive at the time he went downtown and enlisted. Another son enlisted and was sent to Germany. Draftee and Enlistee are terms that fall short when the cries of unequal sacrifice are raised in debate. Some columnists have used, or passed along, language that denigrates draftees. “Sometimes surly draftees” were words used by a columnist in the Wall Street Journal in 1997. “..we are free from sniveling draftees..” was a phrase used by a popular syndicated columnist in 1999 in a column related to sending troops to Kosovo.
While a Selective Service System that required male high school graduates to enter their names on a list was put in place after Vietnam, the “draft” itself was abolished in 1973 and the U.S. went to the “all volunteer Army.” Volunteers would henceforth provide the fighting men for the United States.
This manning provision has been maintained through “actions” in Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, the Balkans, Somalia, an air strike on Libya, a major deployment called Desert Storm (followed by 11 years of ‘no-fly’ zone air patrols over Iraq), a barracks destruction in Saudi Arabia, embassy destructions in Tanzania and Kenya, cruise missile firings into Afghanistan and Sudan, and first and second World Trade Center terror acts in Manhattan. More might be cited but those make quite a ‘busy’ list.
Our sea, air and ground attacks into Afghanistan and then Iraq have now opened a debate on the volunteer Army’s capacities. Again, op-ed voices like those that had raised the issue of unequal sacrifice made by the poor in the Vietnam conflict are raising the same issue relative to service, now of potential careerists in a volunteer Army or National Guard or Reserve. No matter how the U.S. provides for military manpower, a sustained message in our public press moves toward “hell no, we won’t go,” a cry we are on the verge of hearing again. Our “standing army” may eventually be vested in our Customs’ border guards.
Many, with the notable exception of a Secretary of Defense who has accomplished much with “transformation,” a process that has proved necessary but not sufficient, are now concerned that we do not have enough “boots on the ground” to support the objectives the President undertook, with the support of Congress, on two overseas fighting fronts. And like the Brits in their 1806 Mutiny Bill, the U.S. is offering potential volunteers inducements that were not offered to the career regulars when they volunteered. This inducements effort is aimed at meeting volunteer-Army quotas presently allowed by U.S. law, and does not address any increase in size of our standing Army.
Who will be ‘asked to sacrifice’ is emerging once again to the level of active debate in the United States. In the process, all prior tried or considered ideas will be re-floated, including a draft, and UMT. And yes, those arguments in the British House of Commons 200 years ago are relevant. An end game is that no one will be asked to sacrifice. We might simply turn to the UN for help.
In The Republican, Springfield Massachusetts’ morning paper, edition of June 28, 2005, Op Ed writer Bob Herbert leads his column with “The all-volunteer Army is not working.” The Republican’s headline writer announced the piece with, “Who will we send to fight our wars?
On of my favorite hymns is composer Dan Schutte’s, “Here I Am, Lord.” One line goes, “Finest bread I will provide, till their hearts be satisfied, I will give my life to them, Whom shall I send?” The answer comes in the refrain; “Here I am Lord, …., I will go Lord….”
posted by Franklyn E. Dailey Jr. at 11:33 AM
<< Home