After the Vietnam war, our country made a deliberate decision to move away from the military draft. At the time, one argument was made, and apparantly bought by our nation, that the drafting system had unfairly skewed the military population to only include those without enough money or political connections to avoid service. Of course, it also had to do with the fact that so many of our boys had been killed or permanently mamed physically, psychologically or both by a conflict that was highly unpopular in the US.
We decided that if young men and women were given the opportunity to choose whether or not they wanted to serve their country in a military capacity, we would surely have enough to carry out the missions and defense of our country that the military would require.
And for about 30 years, that did seem to be true.
But in those 30 years, we have had little in the way of major military operations, and none that required the kind of long term, sustained fighting as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanastan over the past 5 years.
Today, the military announced that it's budget for re-enlistment bonuses has now exceeded the 1 billion dollar mark, and has increased 6 fold since 2003. And it is not because there are just so many re-enlistees that the sheer multitudes have overwhelmed the budget.
The reasons are well known, and occasionally well reported. The military simply cannot recruit enough people to the point that standards have been lowered to a pathetic point. A point where one can be 42 years old and sign up. A point where a convicted felon can sign up. A point where virtually every standard of a military man has been lowered below where anyone thought it would be when they began our all volunteer way of defense. The convicted felon standard will in itself surely start a debate similiar to the one we had in vietnam where 18 year olds who couldn't even vote were drafted, killed or scarred for life. The 18-20 year olds got the right to vote for their service, and I expect the criminals to ask for the same. After all, another lowered standard is granting citizenship itself to folks who would otherwise would not be eligible for such a thing.
And they still can't get enough people.
Perhaps it goes back to the "shared sacrifice" concept. And the belief that many hold that our President and his people never called on our young people to serve. Instead, they used "business as usual" methods and just lowered standards as recruitment wells went dry. This, along with reports of deception and fraudulent claims being made to potential recruits by military recruiters. But recruiters being like used car salesmen to meet quotas isn't really anything new. All of us who remember "Private Benjiman" and "Stripes" can remember when army recruitment was imitated and parodied in those movies in an "art imitating life" kind of way.
Apparantly on the re-enlistment front, soldiers aren't inspired to re-enlist for any patriotic motives, but only for ever increasing bribes.
And they still can't get enough people.
Is it perhaps time we re-examine our military recruitment system. Is the "all volunteer" concept doable in times of extended conflict like we have now? With our military verging on a breaking point where it is trying to sustain multiple conflicts while maintaining equipment, developing new technologies and trying to care for those who have already sacrificed with their bodies and minds which are now a wreck, is "all volunteer" the way to go forward?
Should we look again to a military draft or some other system of military recruitment? If so, how should we do it? I believe, if anything, the system must be fair. Fair to the point where who you are simply does not matter. Yes, certain "hardship" cases would be considered, but the standards would have to be much different thatn the favoritism that was used in our last draft.
Also, I submit that a new "draft" (for lack of a better term) should be more than just a military recruitment tool. "Service" to our country involves more than grabbin a gun and headin for the mideast. Contientous objectors and perhaps some others who are deemed worthy, should be given the options of non military service to our country. Just think, if we had that now, how much smoother, efficient and more effective recoveries might be in the flooded out gulf region or if some young folks would have been available to help some folks dig their way out of the unexpected snows up north for example.
Every year, our country experiences disasters, both man made and natural, in which an organization of young people in service to our country could serve, learn and grow as Americans.
In the meantime, we would be assured that our military would not be caught with their pants down like if we suddently need their peresence somewhere other than on the front lines we currently have in our conflicts.
Let me be clear. I am not endorsing anything that resembles what we had before the 1970's when we abolished the draft. The system we used than was corrupted, slanted and simply unfair. What I suggest is a more comprehensive form of service that involves all young people, regardless of backround.
But regardless of which directions we go in down the road, this much is certain. Simply budgeting and throwing more money at the problem of our depleted military to keep around underqualified and tired troops is not a good plan. We can certainly do better than this.