Why the Draft is a REALLY bad idea

[JCVaughn]

http://nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins010903.asp

[JCVaughn]

Dodgy Drafters

Reps. Rangel and Conyers try to undermine the military.

BY CASPAR W. WEINBERGER

Reps. Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) and John Conyers (D., Mich.) have pushed some bad ideas before, but their new proposal--to bring back the Vietnam era in the form of a military draft--is far and away the worst. Attempting to play both the race and class-warfare cards, the congressmen said the U.S. "must debate whether it should continue with a fighting force comprised disproportionately of people from low-income families and minorities." In another burst of unconscionable demagoguery, they also say that the burden of defending the country is resting too heavily on the shoulders of the poor and minorities.
This is all utter and pernicious nonsense.

The congressmen never mentioned that the burden of defending the country is resting on the shoulders, white, black, brown, etc., of those who want that "burden," and whose volunteering gives it to them.

If some statistical genius has computed that our all-volunteer force may have slightly more black and Hispanic volunteers than is "proportionate" (to what?), I would reply that that simply demonstrates that there is a higher degree of patriotism among black and Hispanic youths of draft age than among whites of draft age. That should be a matter of praise and gratification. But no! The congressmen simply ignore the fact that however "proportional," our military is what it is because it is made up of people who want to be there.

Messrs. Rangel and Conyers want to scrap all that, roughly like the people who wanted to break up the New York Yankees because they were too good. The congressmen talk as if there is some racist administration forcing young blacks and Hispanics into the danger of war while leaving the children of the white and the rich free to evade military service and practice greed or whatever.

That is the picture they would like to paint. But that simply does not exist. The true picture is that if there are "disproportionately" too many black and Hispanic volunteers, that is because "too many" of them are volunteering to defend us all. Mr. Rangel and others like him prefer force and compulsion, not reason, on behalf of their causes; and so their solution to the "dilemma" of too many patriotic blacks and other minorities seems to be to draft everyone age 18 to 26 into a vast unneeded pool of people, all of whom, no matter how unsuitable, would have to be given military training or forced into some unspecified national service.

This would cost enormous sums--far higher than Messrs. Rangel and Conyers would vote to authorize--all to give the country many million more unneeded government employees. But a draft is neither needed nor favored by the military or the majority of citizens. Instead, the stage would be set for the fierce opposition to a draft that marked the Vietnam years, when the nation was polarized.

Would any of this improve the military? Hardly. The purpose of the Rangel-Conyers draft is not to improve the military but to build public opposition to war with Iraq. A collateral result would be to fill the military with people who do not want to be there.

A recent editorial in The Wall Street Journal exploded the idea that the children of low-income or minority parents are at greater risk in war. Those who insist that blacks will become the brunt of combat casualties "have it exactly backwards," as the Journal correctly pointed out. The Rangel-Conyers problem is that none of the standard demagogic appeals to racism or class warfare apply to a military comprised exclusively of volunteers. So the congressmen have to invent a scenario in which to invoke their mumbo-jumbo.

The bottom line, to which every American concerned about national security should pay heed: Trained and eager volunteers are far more effective soldiers than conscripts. I volunteered for the Army and the Infantry as a private after graduating from Law School in 1941 and trained and served with both drafted soldiers and volunteers. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that volunteers were far more effective than draftees and eager to train and to fight.

Once, early in 1982, President Reagan and I reviewed a force of young American soldiers newly enrolled. Afterwards he said to me, "You know, Cap, I would infinitely rather look each of these young people in the eye and know that each wants to be here."

Let's keep it that way.

Mr. Weinberger, defense secretary in the Reagan administration, is chairman of Forbes magazine.


Copyright © 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[JCVaughn]

Draft Dodge
Conscription is a bad idea.

Saturday, January 11, 2003 12:01 a.m.

(Editor's note: This editorial appeared in Monday's Wall Street Journal.)

For reasons that have nothing to do with improving the effectiveness of our military and everything to do with the politics of class and race, two members of the Congressional Black Caucus want to resurrect the draft.

Charlie Rangel of New York and John Conyers of Michigan say they will introduce conscription legislation this week in order to, in Mr. Rangel's words, "encourage more caution and a greater willingness to work with the international community in dealing with Iraq."

Both of these liberal Democrats, it should be noted, opposed the Iraq resolution. And while no one--including its sponsors--expects the bill to go anywhere, it's worth explaining why a nationwide draft is not in the interest of military readiness, even as we're on the brink of war.

It should count for something that the military itself--never mind Congress--is unenthusiastic about revisiting 1973, the last year the nation drafted troops. The armed forces are meeting their recruitment goals and the Pentagon has said repeatedly that it has more than enough enlistees for any invasion of Iraq. Conscripts need at least a year to get combat-ready, which is way too long for any military action currently under discussion.

Today's military has three decades of experience with an all-volunteer force. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are proven professionals, which is what modern warfare requires. "The speed of warfare today, the degree of specialization and the intensity of training to use the equipment dictates a professional force," says Larry Wortzel, a Heritage Foundation defense analyst and retired Army colonel. Polls put the military near the top of the list of institutions Americans respect most.

We doubt any of this is news to Representatives Rangel and Conyers, both of whom are veterans. What's unfortunate is their willingness to ignore these realities in order to score a few, antiwar political points. They've even stooped to making the baseless claim (and ugly implication) that war against Iraq would put black servicemen disproportionately in harm's way. The suggestion is even more counterfactual today than when the left started making it after Vietnam.

A research paper published last April by Aline Quester of the Center for Naval Analysis and Curtis Gilroy of the Defense Department reports that in Vietnam, "black fatalities were between 12% and 13% of all Americans killed--a figure proportionate to the size of their civilian population and actually lower than their percentage of the army at that time." In the six military operations since then, blacks have comprised 15% of combat fatalities while making up 13% of the population. Still, say the authors, that 15% is "considerably below the percentage of blacks in the active-duty army (about 19%)."

Trends suggest that this will be even less of an issue in the future. Today's military finds more blacks than ever in military occupations where they are less likely to physically engage the enemy. According to the latest Defense Department figures, for example, just 12.6% of blacks in the military are in the category that includes infantry, gun crews and seamanship specialists; the figure is 18.4% for whites. By contrast, 26.4% of blacks, against only 11.9% of whites, serve as functional supporters and administrators. The Special Forces, who led the Afghanistan campaign and who would likely play a key role in Iraq, are overwhelmingly white.

Which means those insisting that blacks are likely to bear the brunt of combat casualties have it exactly backward. If Messrs. Rangel and Conyers want to have an honest debate with the Administration over military action in Iraq, that's fine. But they should find a way to do it without stoking racial flames or coercing draftees with little training into battle. We already have a capable force of volunteers who signed up knowing they may face combat and are trained both to win and survive it.

Copyright © 2003 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[BillyTucci]

Both are right on the money.  As I read the former Secratary's article, my mind started racing, but the Dow Jones editorial cwas just wonderful and covered all the bases.  Beware of your self-interested Reps my fellow Americans.  Beware.

[JCVaughn]

Defense disputes racial imparity
Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Published January 14, 2003

The Pentagon yesterday disputed assertions by two congressmen who seek a reinstatement of the draft that blacks are assigned to disproportionate numbers of combat positions.

"Blacks tend to be concentrated in administrative and support jobs, not in combat jobs," the Pentagon report says. "This is in sharp contrast to the situation in a draft force."

The 11-page report says blacks make up 21 percent of the enlisted force, but only 15 percent of infantry, armored and artillery units. Blacks are about 12 percent of the overall population.

The report was made public in response to calls last week for reinstituting the draft by lawmakers who claimed that military burdens fell unfairly to minorities and the underprivileged.

In support and administrative jobs, blacks account for 36 percent of all U.S. military personnel, and 27 percent of all medical and dental personnel in the armed forces.

The report was produced by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to highlight the benefits of the all-volunteer force, which proponents said had resulted in the most professional military in American history.

"Contrary to myth, data show that the enlisted force is quite representative of the civilian population," the report said, noting the benefits since the draft ended in 1973.

The report stated that casualties in the 1991 Persian Gulf war were consistent with racial representation in combat and noncombat jobs.

Blacks made up 23 percent of the 550,000 U.S. troops deployed to the Gulf and accounted for 17 percent of the combat and noncombat deaths.

Whites made up 71 percent of U.S. forces during the Gulf war and accounted for 76 percent of the deaths. Hispanics made up 4 percent of the forces and took 4 percent of the deaths in the conflict.

Two black Democrats, Reps. Charles B. Rangel of New York and John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, introduced legislation last week to reinstate the draft, claiming that minorities and poor people were disproportionately represented in the nation's military, while affluent families were underrepresented.

"For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance," Mr. Rangel said.

Mr. Rangel opposes the Bush administration's push for a war to disarm Iraq and wants Congress to pass a draft law to create what he regards as a more-representative military force.

The Defense Department report said today's professional military is not manned mostly by poor and uneducated troops.

"Today, black recruits closely parallel their representation among the youth population," the report said. "As with all [volunteer force] recruits, these young men and women are high school graduates with above-average aptitude; they are not the 'poor and uneducated.'"

The report said that 32 percent of recruits come from homes where the father is a high school graduate, compared with 31 percent of the general population in the same age group.

Also, 21 percent of the recruits have fathers who have at least a college education, compared with 30 percent of the general population for the same age group.

The report praised the benefits of an all-volunteer military force over a conscripted force.

"The all-volunteer force has served the nation for more than a quarter-century, providing a military that is experienced, smart, disciplined and representative of America," the report said.

The volunteer force lets the military build more advanced weapons because the service members are smarter and better-trained. Draftees quit the service early, requiring larger numbers and more training.

"With a conscripted force comes higher personnel turnover, which results in substantial costs," the report said. "Shorter enlistment terms, characteristic of a draft, result in high personnel turnover and a degradation in unit stability and performance."

Training costs are higher with a draftee military, thus reducing warfighting preparedness, the report said.

"With a volunteer military comes a more motivated force," the report said. "Data show that people perform better if they are true volunteers than if they are coerced into military service."

Many of today's military leaders are veterans of the Vietnam War and oppose the draft because of problems with draftees during the conflict.

A senior defense official who briefed reporters said the military leadership was "horrified" by congressional proposals to reinstate the draft.

"No one wants to go back to a situation where the people didn't want to serve; in fact, might have been hostile to the purposes to which they were put," the official said.

Copyright © 2003 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

[JCVaughn]

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030121/4794964s.htm