Should Congress reinstate a peacetime draft to fill the ranks?

0 Comments | Insight on the News, April 5, 1999 | by Mark Pizzo, | Philip Gold

Yes: Both national security and the nation's civil society would benefit from such a move.

Those who inveigh against a peacetime draft usually argue in the context of the draft that supported the Vietnam War. A fairly representative example is the argument of Robert W. Blue Jr., writing last year in the San Diego Union-Tribune that "Congress wouldn't support [conscription]; most members of Congress have never served in the military; many even managed to avoid military service when we had a draft. Our commander in chief managed to avoid military service during the Vietnam War. Many young people and their parents would do everything possible to avoid a draft. Think of the cost in law enforcement and military authorities crawling through every mall looking for draft dodgers. Marijuana policy would go out the window because many draftees would view it as a welcome, early ticket home."

Indeed, it was a draft that was as unpopular as the Vietnam War; it was a draft with rules that were unfairly applied, class discrimination tied to politics and wealth and very poor administration. Our nation was in great upheaval with issues of race, drugs, morality, authority and service to country. But that was then, and this is now.

While there are remnants of such issues in dialogues today, our world is a different place. Students are not protesting in the street, they are eagerly entering a thriving job market fueled by a booming economy. Industry is offering attractive salaries and benefits for education and health care that outcompete the military. American youth are bombarded with messages of impulsiveness, individualism and a "just-do-it" mentality, and according to Tom Ricks in Making the Corps, the gap between military and civilian culture is widening. Unfortunately, the services have been forced to adopt a Madison Avenue culture to attract recruits. The terms "national security" "service" and "E Pluribus Unum" rarely are heard. We are teaching America's youth to ask what America can do for them, not what they can do for America.

And yet, America needs the service of its best and brightest. The Cold War is over, but war is not. In addition, there is bipartisan support for a foreign policy of engagement, not isolationism. The demise of the Soviet Union does not guarantee the security and tranquility of the United States. Therefore, the United States must remain engaged.

Maintaining regional stability improves our ability to expand our trade and maintain economic viability; economic stability fuels domestic tranquility. However, domestic tranquility is more than economic -- the United States has yet to turn the tide in its war on drugs, and the threat of weapons of mass destruction used inside the continental United States grows with the increase of so-called fourth-generation warfare.

What does all this have to do with reestablishing the draft? It's the threat, stupid. The all-volunteer force is not maintaining the force levels to address these threats. The Army, Navy and Air Force are experiencing difficulty in meeting their required end-strengths to man the force. As defense journalist George C. Wilson noted in his argument for a selective draft in Navy Times, the Navy could not fill 6,892 of its billets last year. The Army is 2,300 persons short of its recruiting goal for 1999, and the Air Force, while meeting its quota for enlisted members, is paying large bonuses, along with the Navy and Marine Corps, to try to stem the drain of pilots. Hidden in these numbers is the question of whether people with the right skills are, in fact, being recruited. The annual reports of the military services to Congress last year noted a serious shortage of personnel with critically needed skills.

Additionally, the cost of recruiting is steadily increasing. It costs the Army $11,187 in recruiting and advertising costs for every man and woman it signed up in fiscal 1998. The Navy's cost was $7,271 a recruit; the Air Force's, $4,161; and the Marines', $5,590. On top of these costs, recruiters are under duress to meet unachievable numbers. The services are depriving their front-line units of experienced noncommissioned officers to meet the growing need of more recruiters on the street. Wilson asks the right question: "How much is too much for recruiting an all-volunteer force? Can this money be sent in other directions of readiness and training with a draft?"

My answer is "absolutely." At present, the congressional approach to fix the services is flawed. A congressional strategy is emerging that emphasizes bonuses and benefits, higher retirement salaries and lowering standards. While retirement and health benefits need to be restored, it is not the answer to the problem. A good number of officers and enlisted personnel, active and retired, find this strategy to be personally offensive as well as a prescription for disaster on the battlefields. It is a strategy that appeals to self-interest rather than selfless service. The answer lies in a fair and just draft system -- unlike that of the Vietnam War.