For Peace and Justice, Restore the Military Draft
The United States previously registered men and enacted a military draft only when needed to fight its wars. War or the need for additional military forces could trigger congressional legislation for a military draft. When the war ended, the military draft stopped, service members returned home, and peace ensued. Therefore, one might conclude that the end of both the Vietnam War and the military draft on the same day in 1973 meant the end of war. Although the United States did avoid significant military conflict for more than a decade after ending the military draft, why then has the United States engaged in almost non-stop military involvement since December 1989 without imposing a draft? If ending the draft has led to more military conflicts for the United States, perhaps the time has come for the restoration of the draft to provide a counterbalance. A new military draft system would restore public involvement and awareness in military operations. A new military draft would also promote equality, fairness, and social justice at home while creating an additional “speed bump” for the United States against moving too fast with a military option.
The mission of the United States Department of Defense (DoD) is to provide military forces to deter war and to protect the security of the country. The DoD regularly obtains its manpower through voluntary enlistments along with commissioned officer graduates from the four military service academies and Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) programs in some state and private colleges. Additionally, the DoD employed draft conscription to help fill the military ranks during times of war. However, nearly fifty years ago, the DoD underwent a revolutionary change on how it procures those forces necessary to fight our country’s wars: End the military draft and rely entirely on volunteers. Although this change eliminated the military draft, it has not deterred war. This new all-volunteer military fosters an environment for the United States to engage in even more, unrelenting conflicts than ever before.
The original thirteen colonies required men to join a militia. After independence, the United States drafted young men in a call to arms when needed. To accomplish that goal in modern times, the United States Congress passed a law to register men for drafting into military service. The most recent act of Congress created the Selective Service System, which is still used today to register men for possible military service. However, that system was effectively neutralized by the elimination of the military draft in January 1973. When Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird at that time achieved the goal of ending the draft, he was thus able to move forward with the establishment of the All-Volunteer Armed Force (AVF) to replace it.
The volunteer nature of the AVF makes the Selective Service System next to obsolete. The AVF also makes it more challenging for the United States to avoid wars or the deployment of forces to conduct military operations, since the AVF coincidentally eliminated the military draft along with the general public’s liability and chances for military service entry. To understand how this happened, one should review a history of the military draft prior to the AVF concept.
History of United States Military Conscription
For nearly two centuries since the birth of the nation, the United States Armed Forces comprised a moderate cadre of volunteer, career officers and noncommissioned officers in its regular active duty forces, with a substantial number of reserve forces and the state militias (National Guard) available for call-up in times of need. During times of war or when the standing army needed reinforcement, the United States also registered men for possible military service. DoD then implemented a conscription order for additional military recruits from this registration list to help fill active duty units, and called up reserve and National Guard force units for service. Then at the end of the hostilities, many units were disbanded, with career military members staying on active duty while draftees and reservists were mustered out.
Congress enacted The Selective Service Act of 1917 to raise a United States military force through conscription, a force that would be capable of entering the European Theater during World War I (WW-I) which would have been unattainable through volunteers alone. Although former President Theodore Roosevelt urged the assemblage of a volunteer force for the war in Europe during the drafting of this act, President Woodrow Wilson and senior Army officers advocated against the concept. They believed the number required to fight overseas could not be met by an all-volunteer force alone, and although the Selective Service Act of 1917 added the authority to raise four volunteer divisions, that authority was never exercised. The Congress terminated the Selective Service Act of 1917 in 1920, when the need for a military draft was no longer considered necessary.
Another major goal of Congress in the creation of the Selective Service Act of 1917 was to establish as fair and impartial a system of conscription as humanly possible, while acknowledging that certain exemptions for compassion and extreme hardship were in order. For example, wealthy draftees could no longer hire a substitute to fight in their place, as had occurred during the Civil War and which led to a very low number of well-to-do men fighting. Draft deferments for school only allowed completion of the current semester. Ultimately, a national patriotic attitude encouraged by a large marketing campaign and an amendment to the 1917 act which expanded the registration age range to include age 18 through age 45, resulted in more than half the armed forces for WW-I being draftees.
The United States registered men only when necessary for drafting into military service. Indeed, the United States fought the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, and the Spanish-American War without using a military draft. Besides using conscription for the Civil War and WW-I, Congress passed The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 in order to fight World War II (WW-II). When no longer needed to supply manpower for the war effort, Congress terminated the act in 1947. However, less than a year later, Congress passed the Selective Service Act of 1948, which established a new and separate registration system that has never been terminated; it has only been amended, extended, and the name changed by other military service acts and by Presidential executive orders and proclamations ever since.
The salient point of the Selective Service Act of 1948 is that it created a permanent system of registration for possible drafting into military service when no specific declaration or war requirement existed at the time. It begs the question, “Why is there a need to register men for a military draft when no war requirement exists, which had been the rationale for the preceding 150+ years?”
The United States Congress has not officially declared war since WW-II, even though the country has fought significant conflicts and operations with code names since the end of that war. The Korean “police action” (aka Korean War), which was fought under the auspices of the United Nations, and the Vietnam Conflict (aka Vietnam War) were both major conflicts involving large numbers of United States military draftees in the fight. Not only were exemptions and deferments from service more liberally obtained for Korea and Vietnam than those granted under previous military drafts for WW-I or WW-II, but Congress also did NOT issue any war declarations. This atmosphere of drafting large numbers of men to fight in undeclared wars while also issuing a large number of exemptions and deferments from military service to a mostly wealthier class of prospective draftees set the political stage for ending the draft and creating the AVF.
Vietnam Conflict Effect on Conscription
The United States’ involvement in Vietnam escalated after congressional approval of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in August 1964, which granted President Johnson the power to conduct military operations in Southeast Asia without declaring war. Beginning in 1965, the number of draftees sent to fight (and for thousands to die) in Vietnam accelerated. From 1966 onward, the American public increasingly believed United States military involvement was a mistake, as reported by the Pew Research Center. The public perceived the military draft for this war back then as a system which unfairly affected lower and middle class registrants. The draft provided the driving force behind many public protests of the war.
Many of the protests against the military draft started on college campuses in the ’60s, with significant hostility also directed at ROTC programs and recruiters. Left-wing media and other activists urged colleges to ban ROTC completely, a concept which met with success in many Ivy League schools and other institutions around the country. This anti-ROTC sentiment on college campuses lasted for decades after Vietnam ended, and constituted another factor affecting public attitudes towards a draft and the military.
An opinion emerged during the Vietnam conflict that there were too many ways for “fortunate sons” to avoid being drafted to fight an ugly, undeclared war. College deferments and enlistments in the Reserves and state National Guards, which essentially were not used to fight this war, allowed many in the upper class or privileged stratum of society to avoid the fight. Those who enlisted in the Guard or Reserve could also say they too served during Vietnam, even though this method of service was often seen as a sanctuary from the war.
In an effort to combat the perception of an unfair system of drafting military recruits while granting numerous deferments and exemptions, President Nixon signed a 1969 amendment to the Military Selective Service Act of 1967, creating a random selection lottery to determine the order of call for induction. The name of the act was further changed by President Nixon in 1971 to the Military Selective Service Act, which also made registration compulsory for men between 30 days before and 29 days after their 18th birthday. The last official military draft lottery took place in February 1972 for military service in 1973, and no new draft orders were issued after this lottery.
A year after the February 1972 lottery, Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird announced the suspension of the military draft, allowing for creation of the AVF to replace it. The public scorn for the draft then began to dissipate. Secretary Laird’s establishment of the AVF emerged as a response to societal and political backlash to the war in Vietnam, and specifically how men were drafted for service there. The AVF also fulfilled DoD’s requirement to ensure manpower would continue to fill the ranks after Vietnam.
Even with the DoD suspension of the draft, the law still required men aged 18 to 25 years old to register with the Selective Service System for possible service. Later in 1975, President Gerald Ford eliminated the Selective Service registration requirement for men aged 18 to 25 years old. Nevertheless, President Jimmy Carter reinstated the military service registration requirement in 1980 for men aged 18 to 26 years old, in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Today the Military Selective Service Act still requires men to register for a possible military draft.
Some men merely fled to Canada to evade the draft during the Vietnam Conflict, while others refused to register for it. President Ford first offered conditional amnesty to these draft dodgers in 1974, but President Carter granted a full amnesty in 1977. The granting of these presidential amnesties after the end of the Vietnam Conflict cemented the public perception that indeed something was drastically wrong with the military draft during that war.
Selective Service System Changes
A case can be made that the current Selective Service System is next to useless, except maybe as a civil service welfare program to maintain a large database. Records show that only 20 men have been prosecuted since 1980 for not registering with the Selective Service System, with no prosecutions at all since 1986. Indeed, the Selective Service System essentially uses an honor system for young men to register when they reach age 18. Even though the failure of a man to register can be punished as a felony, the national average for registration compliance is only 88 percent, according to the Selective Service System’s Compliance Rates for 2015. In fact, approximately 1/3 of the nation is below 80 percent compliance, with the District of Columbia exhibiting the lowest compliance rate, at 35 percent. The penalties for not registering include the possibility of losing eligibility for federal student loans, grants, work studies, and some state financial aid and benefits. Obviously, these penalties are not much of a deterrent for failing to register. To achieve better registration compliance, the tenets of the Selective Service System need to be enforced; otherwise, it will be viewed as inconsequential.
Congress should amend comprehensively the Military Selective Service Act to bring it up to date with today’s technologically advanced society, evolving cultural mores, the needs of the AVF, and the current world situation. Congress passed the original legislation for the Selective Service System over 70 years ago, but the last major amendment, in 1971, merely changed the name. This length of time between initial enactment and major amendments should constitute sufficient rationale to consider an overhaul of the act.
As part of that overhaul, Congress should consider reinstatement of a military draft lottery with 21st century improvements that will help to unite the nation, to establish a just and equitable system, and to avoid costly military conflicts that don’t serve vital national defense interests. Unfortunately, the Vietnam War engendered a public view which may still exist today that a military draft’s sole purpose is to put more boots on the ground with guns. That ominous specter of a 19-year-old military draftee slogging through a steamy Vietnam jungle, only to die in an ambush, still haunts our society. The country needs to shed those negative optics of a draft left over from Vietnam, and return to a system which is perceived as an honorable call to service, much like that which occurred for WW-II. A superior military draft system can be conceived and created that will be seen as reasonable and non-discriminatory, which will also allow the United States the ability to draft the best and brightest, not just the able-bodied, for specific military needs.
For one thing, the United States doesn’t need just combat arms soldiers that previous military drafts fulfilled. Since the early 1970s, the technological needs of the AVF have grown and created many new career fields involving STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math), with openings for tech-savvy talent among other things. The Selective Service System needs changes to support these evolving needs of the AVF by doing more than merely obtaining the name, address, birth date, and social security number of a registrant. Perhaps a registrant might also provide (voluntarily of course) a synopsis of their education, knowledge, skills, and abilities to add to the registration database. For example, if a 19-year-old “whiz-kid” from a Silicon Valley technology company can be drafted instead of the AVF training a person from scratch, this would be cost-effective and timely. The AVF might also find its future drone pilots by drafting them from society, where this technology is growing by leaps and bounds, instead of by training its operators from ground zero.
Several ideas have been bouncing around the Internet and inside the United States Congress these last few years regarding the future of the Selective Service System. That is a good thing! The current version of the Selective Service System has existed for nearly forty-five years to register men for possible draft conscription into military service should a call-up of forces be necessary, even though the United States Armed Forces has officially been “all-volunteer” since 1973. Relatively speaking, the Selective Service System exists merely as a Plan B, to back up the AVF only if the world situation deteriorates catastrophically or the United States itself is invaded.
One senate bill to amend the Military Selective Service Act outlines an expansion of the registration process to include women. With the recent worldwide discussion about fairness, equality, and gender differences and references, perhaps this proposed legislation should read “all persons must register… with the system upon reaching the minimum age.” In response to the question of whether women should register for the military draft, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated, “The fact is every single leader in this country, both men and women, members of the military leadership, believe that it’s fair since we opened up all aspects of the military to women that they would also be registering for Selective Services.” Possibly this inclusion should be added to a more far-reaching system change.
Another concept that shows merit would reinstate the draft along with a supplemental tax (war tax?) to help pay for the costs of the conflict any time Congress issues an authorization for use of military force (AUMF), or when Congress officially declares war. The act and inherent taxes imposed might be repealed or have a “sunset provision” to terminate the act on a set date, or simultaneously with the end of the AUMF or war declaration. It’s likely that this combination of a military draft plus a “conflict tax” would create more public involvement and awareness.
Then there’s the proposal to completely end the Selective Service System and terminate the manpower registration requirements, along with the various local boards and agencies of the Selective Service. The complete elimination of the system would save about $24.4 million a year, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report to Congressional Committees of June 2012 on National Security titled: “DOD Should Reevaluate Requirements for the Selective Service System.”
On the other hand, if the Congress merely stripped the Selective Service System down to its bare essentials and continued the system only in a “deep standby” mode, essentially to maintain the registration database, this would save only about 6.6 million tax dollars each year. Some might say these savings are miniscule in terms of the overall United States budget, but is either of these changes necessary just to save this small amount of taxpayer money?
The Congress should give serious consideration to these and other ideas which might come to light as the nation approaches another September 11th anniversary with no end to the Global War on Terrorism in sight. Unfortunately, the war-fighting bond that the Selective Service System imparts between the government and its citizens is diminished to the point of being next to meaningless by the AVF and other systemic and societal factors. The United States should develop a better method which ties the public to the liabilities and associated hardships when its armed forces are committed in battle.
The Effects of Military Technology
Selective Service System renovation ideas need to be considered in light of the military technological advances which have drastically lowered the need for high troop levels in time of war. One example is the ability of military airpower to deliver precise, devastating ordnance with Global Positioning Satellite system (GPS) guidance. The United States Navy (USN) recently unleashed 59 Tomahawk missiles from miles away in the Mediterranean Sea in a little more than 30 minutes, targeting Syria’s Shayrat airbase, which had been implicated in launching a chemical agent attack. The USN missile crews programmed each Tomahawk individually to find and hit a specific target at the airfield, including a hardened aircraft bunker, a fuel point, ammo bunker, air defense position, and command and control facilities. During previous conflicts like WW-II and Vietnam, an attack of such magnitude would have required a squadron or more of manned aircraft or bombers to be flown in to achieve target success, with the probable loss of aircrews and the potential infliction of collateral damage to civilians. In this recent attack, this technology allowed the USN to accurately devastate the airbase without a single Navy pilot flying in harm’s way, and without the occurrence of collateral damage to unintended targets or civilians.
Equally awe-inspiring is that the United States military “owns the night” on the battlefield with its ability to conduct effective operations while relying on night vision, advanced radar, and infrared optical devices. These technologies permit warfighters to accurately detect, target, and engage enemy forces during low light or reduced visibility. An old adage heard back in the 1970s Army went like this: “If you can be seen, you can be hit…if you can be hit, you can be killed.” These combined technologies allow the military to see the enemy better than ever before.
United States M-1 Abrams tank crews validated this prescient 1970s quote during Operation Desert Storm by using sophisticated laser range finders with advanced stabilized thermal viewers to perform sector scans automatically for target cueing. The technology resulted in M-1 tank crews consistently engaging and decimating Iraqi armor before the Iraqis ever saw the M-1s. In fact, friendly fire destroyed more M-1s in that conflict than were destroyed by enemy actions. The ability to quickly identify, target, engage and destroy enemy forces provides a tremendous combat multiplier to the warfighting equation with fewer troops on the ground.
Nowhere is the “if you can be seen…you can be killed” axiom more solidly confirmed than by the introduction of unmanned, aerial vehicle (UAV) technology, often referred to merely as drones, which carry sophisticated cameras and other sensors. The United States military initially used unmanned drones for forward observation, surveillance, and reconnaissance duties. The superiority of the imaging and sensors aboard the drone aircraft allows it to be flown at medium to high altitudes and loiter over the area of operation for as much as 14 hours; all done with a pilot seated at a comfortable workstation many miles or even continents away. This remains the case today, except that most of these high-flying, remotely piloted drones also mount camera-guided or “fire and forget” missiles. The armed drones can then be used to observe, target, and precisely destroy enemy targets without risking a pilot’s life or using troops on the ground.
Although a soldier on the ground with a weapon in hand will always be needed to hold that ground, it’s hard to fathom a future requirement to draft an army of several hundred thousand to march across a field of battle like the United States did in WW-II. The advances in technology which vastly improve military lethality and efficacy concomitantly lower anticipated troop levels needed to fight future battles. It’s that efficiency in prosecuting a war effort that combines with the smaller, AVF that considerably distances the American public from the various consequences of warfighting.
A sizeable argument might be made that the AVF which has been so successful these last forty-four years in eliminating the need for drafting of recruits is also seen as the primary culprit for mostly removing the public at-large from the weighty decision of going to war. When Congress passes an AUMF or a combat operations resolution, as was the case in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution for the Vietnam Conflict, these congressional actions do not convey the same impact on the public as the Congress declaring war as in WW-I or WW-II, and the raising of an army, taxes, and war bonds to pay for it. In other words, the United States AVF actually makes it easier to wage endless wars and conflicts. Could that have been the original intent in forming the AVF, or was it just an unintended consequence? Without a fair and equitable registration system and military draft to bind the public more closely to these war decisions, the United States may become a nation mired in military conflicts with no end in sight.
Impact of the Military-Industrial Complex
President Eisenhower during his military service in WW-II witnessed firsthand the remarkable ability of the country’s industrial and manufacturing base to design and field the materiel needed to fight and win that war. However, he cautioned in 1961 to beware this union of defense contractors, who supplied the items needed for war, and the military, which desired those resources—a union he labeled the military-industrial complex. He remarked that this union could gain unwarranted influence in decision-making.
To be frank, the defense industry kept the United States out of a hot war with the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact after WW-II through the late 1980s, with the development of weapons and technology that kept the United States ahead in the Cold War. Besides fielding better battlefield technology in anti-tank weapons, artillery, and observation devices, the defense industry started development of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), dubbed “Star Wars” by the media, in the early 1980s. President Ronald Reagan counted on the defense industry’s technological prowess by announcing the creation of SDI, which he then leveraged against the Soviet Union in 1983. As noted in a Harvard Law School National Security Journal article in December 2011, development of SDI allowed the United States to display its technological superiority over the Soviet Union, and hastened the collapse of the Soviet government and the Warsaw Pact.
Many of the technologies created by this industry specifically for the military can be used in general society. For example, a non-militarized version of the GPS system provides precise navigation and mapping for public shipping, trucking, and vehicles around the world. The civilian air travel industry benefits from the defense aircraft industry, which develops new lighter and stronger composite materials to lessen weight and improve performance; and has developed superior technology in air traffic control and satellite communications. Indeed, the military-industrial complex offers a valuable service to society beyond preparing for war. It must continue on to develop newer methods, techniques, and materiel for possible conflicts, all commodities that will also transfer to civilian use. The technological developments which the military-industrial complex can provide to the world will always be needed and important, but the United States needs to make sure this industry does not get out of hand.
There is a question of whether a de facto conspiracy exists within the so-called military-industrial complex to keep war fires burning somewhere, and if the answer is yes, did this “understanding” begin with Korea or Vietnam? After all, necessity is the mother of invention and helps drive a desire within the industry to find solutions to potential or existing problems. Consequently, IF there is a military-industrial complex that conspires with political and military power brokers to continue the need for war materiel, then one must have an ongoing conflict to create “demand” for new inventions, technology, goods, and services. Consumption drives production.
A good deal of money can be made waging war, since it can also be viewed that, “the business of war…is a business.” For example, the WP Brandstudio of The Washington Post published a 2016 report titled: “U.S. Defense Spending Outlook – Cybersecurity, Smart Technologies, Agile Forces,” which stated that DoD had a near $47 billion spending target in 2016 for aircraft and vehicles. The industry needs reliable, ongoing funding to maintain research and development (R&D) facilities and talent, since it may take many years to go from concept to testing to production. If the need or the funding dries up, the talent will move elsewhere. Their argument is that production must be maintained in order to keep perishable skills and talent relevant and new.
It might be argued that the Vietnam War was the first war in which the military-industrial complex really came into its own from a profitability perspective, and perhaps a reason the conflict lasted as long as it did…was there a greed incentive to keep it going? It can also be viewed that the American public had its fill of fighting and losing their sons in that war, many of whom had no choice as they were drafted. The military draft effectively tied the public to the prosecution of that war, and thus the draft at that point in the Vietnam Conflict had its fate sealed.
The handwriting on the walls of the military-industrial complex may have read that IF the United States wanted to continue engaging in undeclared wars, conflicts, and other operations around the world to ostensibly keep the peace or to promote democracy, it would face a firestorm at home if a military draft was used to fill the ranks. It’s one thing for Congress to actually declare war, which implies a more thorough consent of the governed for a worthwhile national cause, and thus acquires a societal acceptance of drafting needed military recruits. It is a wholly different concept to engage in military operations wherein national security goals are a bit more obscure, tenuous, or nuanced without a formal declaration.
If there’s a lot of money to dispense to military contractors (manufacturers, advisers, weapons sales, individual contractors, and consultants) and host governments via war and conflicts, then how does the United States government get the manpower to continue the fight if the public will no longer support a war (or any conflict involving forces) without a clear-cut, national security reason AND which depends on an unfair military draft to fill the ranks? It can then be argued that only an all-volunteer military force would provide the needed political cover for bureaucrats and politicians to continue to allow combat operations around the world for whatever cogent reason of the moment exists, in order to keep the campaign donations flowing from grateful recipients of military contracts. After all, a military volunteer should know what he or she is getting into, and who agreed upfront to perform whatever service is required.
Needless to say, if there is no war, there is no business…and there can’t be any war without people to fight it. If drafting men into military service to continue the war business is now untenable due to a lack of public support or outright hostility, the AVF offers a way for people to readily volunteer to join the cause without public outrage.
Public Awareness, Involvement, and Support
A major problem exists with the much smaller AVF from the perspective of public awareness, involvement, and support of ongoing military operations. Consider the overwhelming public support for both WW-II military operations and the military members who fought in them. The American Institute of Public Opinion found in 1945 that 75 percent of Americans favored continuing the fight until Germany was completely defeated. Returning WW-II veterans were hailed as heroes and participated in parades around the country to honor them. Contrast that with the rampant public protests during the Vietnam Conflict, when returning service members were openly mocked, verbally abused, and spat upon. A NORC Center for Public Affairs Research public opinion poll found that confidence in military leadership reached its lowest point of 32 percent at the end of Vietnam in 1973. Why is there a difference in public opinion and support between WW-II and Vietnam, even though significant numbers of draftees were used in both these conflicts?
Let’s compare those conflicts which used draftees against the public opinion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002—which are being fought entirely by the AVF. A Pew survey in 2003 found initial public opinion favorable for the war in Iraq. Pew surveys during the Iraq War found public support for the war eroded significantly over time, but the favorable view of the military as a whole minimally declined. Over time, various public polling results show a rough 50/50 split in the Iraq War being viewed as a mistake or not, and whether to keep the troops there versus bringing the troops home. This contrasts with a 2016 Gallup Poll which shows a 75 percent public trust and favorability view of the military. In other words, the difference now with the AVF is the public shows high regard and support for the volunteer warfighters and units. Conversely, the public shows no great support for, or public outcry against, ongoing military operations in the Middle East –unlike during Vietnam. This supports the idea that the AVF reduces the general public’s awareness and involvement in military operations.
Public support for the AVF as individuals and as an organization seems to be much higher than ever. Is it because of the volunteer nature? In addition to federal agencies, many civilian companies now offer hiring preference to military veterans, as well as discounts on purchases throughout the year. For example, dozens of restaurants like Denny’s, Applebee’s, Golden Corral and others provide veterans with free or heavily discounted meals on Veterans Day. Groups of citizens often rally at airports to greet returning military from overseas assignments with welcome home banners, handshakes, and hugs. Sports venues around the country have surprised military families before or during a game with a family member who returned from military deployment. Many airlines like American Airlines will upgrade the seat of a military person in uniform for their flight whenever there is seat availability. Sometimes even a fellow air traveler will volunteer their own upgraded seat to a veteran without being asked by the airlines. These and many other small, daily courtesies of support are being extended to the military by citizens.
The AVF itself has not lost the public’s support as happened during the Vietnam Conflict. For many years after the end of Vietnam, the lack of ROTC cadets walking around in uniform on campuses which had banned ROTC removed a daily reminder of the military. This helped to reduce the negative societal attitude about war left over from Vietnam. Public attitudinal changes also may have contributed to the lifting of the ban on ROTC programs at Yale, Harvard, and other institutions in the last seven to nine years. Although the removal of the ROTC ban was also prompted by the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding homosexuals in the military, the softening of universities’ stance on military members programs suggests improved support for them as individuals. The phrase, “Support the Soldier, not the war” might be accurate for some of these institutions.
One needs only to compare the number of families directly impacted by WW-II operations versus current military operations to see a dramatic reduction in public involvement. The population of the United States in 1940 approached 132 million citizens with over 18 million having served in the armed forces during WW-II. So many men going off to serve created a labor shortage at home, which resulted in more women leaving the home and entering the workforce, particularly in the geared-up defense industry…think Rosie the Riveter! It’s also reported that some 20 million Victory Gardens were planted by families, producing nearly 40 percent of all vegetables consumed in the United States during WW-II. Therefore, many families in the United States actively participated in and endured WW-II on a daily basis!
Now let’s look at the comparison of numbers for a definitive answer. The number who served in uniform for WW-II represented a little over 13 percent of all United States citizens. Conversely, the number serving today in the military, including all Reserve Components, is close to 2 million, while the population of the United States now stands at roughly 326 million. Thus, fewer than 1 percent of our citizens served in the military in 2017, representing a significant reduction of citizen and family involvement since WW-II.
Another argument can be made that the AVF, which has been so successful in eliminating the need for drafting recruits, is also a primary culprit for removing the public from the weighty decision of going to war. As mentioned earlier, when Congress passes an AUMF or a combat operations resolution, these congressional actions do not convey the same impact on the public as Congress declaring war, and the raising of taxes and war bonds to pay for it. Again, it’s evident that the AVF actually makes it easier to wage endless wars and conflicts. Was that the original intent for the AVF or just an unintended consequence? Without a fair and equitable registration system and military draft to bind all layers of the public more closely to these war decisions, the United States is at risk of being a nation mired in military conflicts with no end in sight.
The AVF provides an opportunity for anyone to join or to avoid military service, because there’s no draft to evade. When there’s less public involvement, risk, and cost, there’s not as much public firestorm being created when the conflict drags on FOREVER. Some opponents argue reinstating a draft would make it easier for the government to use the military because of the ability to draft service members at will. Perhaps the reverse is true if one considers how public protests against the Vietnam War and its military draft caused the government to end its involvement in that war, AND to eliminate the draft. The AVF has demonstrated excellence at warfighting, but unfortunately warfighting success makes it easier for the government to risk these fine citizens’ lives over and over again, sometimes without a clear agenda, mission, or motive—for the simple reason that they are volunteers and not draftees.
This reliance on the AVF without additional draftees since the Global War on Terror began in 2001 has resulted in many combat veterans with multiple deployments (three or more) of one year or greater each in the various theaters of operations. The end result of the AVF concept is that the United States enjoys a more motivated, professional, dedicated, and smaller military, but the U.S. Government also obtains a reduced “trigger-pull” to use the AVF because of vastly reduced public pressure…after all, they volunteered.
It only took about two or three years in Vietnam (1964 to 1967) for the public protests against that war to rise up and cause political distress. However, once the draft was removed and the military became an AVF, one can see the United States has been fighting in the Middle East for nearly 17 years (27 years if one counts Desert Shield) with almost no protests of any size or substance. Indeed, there have been more protests against Wall Street, abortion, law enforcement, women’s inequality issues, and the healthcare act than any military conflicts fought overseas since 2001.
Social justice requires reintroduction of the military draft. Why should only volunteers carry the entire load of the country’s combat fighting when presumably all citizens benefit from the results? Today an infantry soldier or Marine with ten years of service may have four or five combat duty tours on his or her record, as found through personal observation and interviews. The military is much more effective when members have considerable “dwell time” at home station. Being a volunteer should not be reason enough to endure so much personal and familial hardship, which has also resulted in an average of twenty veterans committing suicide each DAY, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs statistics.
Meanwhile, the operational tempo (OPTEMPO) for special operators (SOCOM) like the Green Berets, Army Rangers, Marine Recon, and Navy SEALs is almost twice that of regular service members. Many in SOCOM, the USN or USMC endured a cycle of six months of deployment followed by six months at home, then another six months of deployment to any of 138 different countries in 2016. That amounts to 70 percent of the world with United States forces deployed in country in 2016. The AVF “visited” more places around the world in 2017 with fewer troops to do the visiting. This cycle of deployment, coupled with the high OPTEMPO level for all in the force, has been almost non-stop since 2001, resulting in recruiting challenges across the AVF—a problem that could be alleviated by the addition of draftees. According to the latest DoD Military Personnel report of September 2019, there are now 174,253 active duty military stationed in 170 different countries overseas. Politico estimated the number of U.S. military bases abroad at 800.
Another indicator of severe taxing of the AVF is the Pentagon’s increasing use of mercenary forces to augment U.S. forces. During a 2009 deployment to Baghdad, the author routinely traveled through checkpoints which were guarded by soldiers from Uganda or Nigeria. To visit the Al-Faw Palace in Baghdad, as an example, required a visitor to enter the surrounding area through a roadway checkpoint manned by these contract guards. When U.S. Army Sergeant John Russell went on a killing spree at the Camp Liberty Combat Stress Center in April 2009, Camp Victory implemented protective action, which was not widely reported, by stationing guards—Ugandan guards—at each Combat Stress Center on their base. Pretty sad evidence that we needed Ugandan guards at Combat Stress Centers to protect U.S. forces…from themselves.
The Atlantic reported in an August 2016 article titled: “America’s Addiction to Mercenaries”, that “Washington’s reliance on private contractors to fight its wars has mutated into a strategic vulnerability.” Typically, this is done by the Pentagon hiring a U.S. company as a primary contractor for some service like facility guards. The contractor then recruits its “employees” from places like Uganda or Nigeria to perform the tasks outlined in the contract. The Congressional Budget Office reported in 2008 that the United States spent more than $100 billion on private contractors to support operations in Iraq.
The use of private contractors by DoD isn’t confined to menial tasks like laundry, bath, and toilet cleaning, either. For example, the Congressional Research Service reported that private security contractors peaked in Afghanistan in 2012 at more than 28,000, and in Iraq in 2009 at more than 15,000. The Congressional Research Service also reported that DoD obligated $249 billion in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars for fiscal years 2007-2016 for contracts performed in Iraq and Afghanistan. This same report shows that private security forces and other DoD-funded contractor personnel outnumbered the United States Armed Forces in those countries almost every year. Private security contractors may perform personal security, protect convoys, or perform static security missions as identified in a January 2016 report prepared by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Program Support). As a final point about contractors being used by the DoD, these contractors reduce military “boots on the ground,” which supports the concept of moving away from using active-duty military.
If the United States were to restore a military draft that was fair and provided equal opportunity for all classes of citizens as well as all genders to be at risk for training and participating in military operations, this might provide the impetus for the public to once again be a full participant in these operations, rather than a spectator. The fact is the majority of U.S. society really has little to no “skin in the game” concerning the country being at war since 2001. The public would then become a more credible back-stop against an administration, government, or military-industrial complex that might want to do unreasonable things for unclear motives. The AVF of the United States is worthy of high praise for success on and above the battlefields and oceans around the world since its inception, but the force is getting tired and overused. Perhaps it should be augmented with draftees to share these societal burdens. Remember the mission of the Department of Defense… “to deter war,” not to engage in it ad nauseum.
We Jump Hoops
We Jump Hoops (THE ARMY OF ONE: TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND AT BAGHDAD) Copyright Kelly J. Galvin 2004
We jump hoops. We
the troops. We
Wait long. We
March strong. We
Yell loud. We
Fight proud. We
Work hard. We
ain’t lard. We
Orders obey. We
Truly say. We
Shoot precise. We
Bring rice. We
Save child. We
Not wild. We
Love freedom. We
Bleed some. We
Die brothers. We
Save others. We
Honor Him. We
Sing hymn. We
Act grand. We
United stand.
U.S. SALUTE ACT of XXXX
H. Amdt. XXXX to H.R. XXXX
To amend H.R. XXXX National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year XXXX to authorize additional select members of the United States Armed Services to carry certain individual weapons for self-defense while on duty in the United States, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
August XX, XXXX
XXXXXX introduced the following amendment which was referred to the Committee on the Armed Services.
AN AMENDMENT
To amend H.R. 1735 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year XXXX to authorize additional select members of the United States Armed Forces to carry certain individual weapons for self-defense while on duty in the United States, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title.
This Amendment may be cited as the “U.S. SALUTE Act of XXXX” (United States Service-members Armed Locally Until Terrorism Ends Act of XXXX).
SEC. 2. Background.
(a) In general – This act amends the NDAA for FY XXXX to authorize certain select individuals of the United States Armed Services to receive additional weapons and legal training in order for them to carry individual weapons for self-defense during the performance of their duties off of Federal installations and facilities.
(b) History – A Global War on Terror (GWOT) was declared effective September 11, 2001 and is not yet officially ended. The Global War on Terrorism Service Medal (GWOTSM) was established by Executive Order 13289, 12 March 2003. It is authorized for award to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who have participated in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) operations outside of the designated areas of eligibility, on or after 11 September 2001 to a future date STILL to be determined.
(c) Current Threat – No longer is the GWOT confined to areas or countries specifically outside of CONUS. The rise of ISIL in the Middle East with their continued fervent calls for individual and group jihadists to attack the USA everywhere and anywhere presents a new front in the GWOT. We need only look to recent events such as the Chattanooga Tennessee military killings in July 2015, the Ft. Hood massacre of 2009, Boston Marathon bombing of 2013, and the shooting attack at Garland, Texas in May 2015 to confirm that ISIL’s call for jihad is being heard. The GWOT is now on U.S. soil.
(d) Servicemembers at Risk – The U.S. Armed Services employs thousands of servicemembers in the United States who normally work “outside the wire” of a Federal installation or other facility with enhanced security measures in place. These servicemembers may work as military recruiters, ROTC instructors, advisors and contract managers with private industry, and other special duty positions. Most wear their service uniform in these duties and thus are at increased exposure and risk.
(e) “Gun-Free” zones appear to be effective only in disarming the innocent and creating a “designated target area” which leaves people there completely defenseless and at the mercy of terrorists, jihadists and other lawbreakers who ignore the established Gun-Free Zone. The Chattanooga Tennessee incident of July 2015 and the Ft. Hood Massacre of 2009 are examples of Gun-Free Zones being violated by jihadists with weapons. It is also noted that the perpetrator of the Chattanooga Tennessee killings FIRST fired on a military-civilian location and THEN drove up to 10 miles away to ANOTHER military location to continue the rampage.
(f) Arms Precedent – It is noted that “armed military sentinels” protected some civilian locations throughout the United States and specifically Washington, D.C. civilian government facilities during World War II.
SEC. 3 Specific.
(a) The “U.S. SALUTE Act of 2015 ” authorizes the Service Secretaries to identify duties, localities, and other circumstances in the United States which may place their servicemembers performing those duties at increased exposure and risk to local acts of terrorism by either “lone wolf” or organized cell terrorists.
(b) Service Secretaries may allow servicemembers in these uniquely identified positions to carry individual weapons after additional appropriate arms and legal training in self-defense for the individual weapon to be carried.
(c) Service Secretaries will provide funding from within current budget allocations to conduct training and provide arms and self-defense ammunition to fulfill the requirements of this act.
(c) In most instances, the individual weapon designated for carry would be the sidearm (handgun) as designated by each service as their standard issue.
(d) Service Secretaries are authorized by this Act to delegate authority to the first O-6 level Commander in each local command to accomplish the following:
(1) Identify positions and duties generally in need of this protection by descriptions found in organizational documents (i.e. TO&E, para/line, etc).
(2) Consult with local civilian authorities (police, sheriff, etc) as may be necessary regarding unique considerations, both legal and otherwise (i.e. rules of engagement) in order to develop effective training topics for the area(s) where arms may be carried by service members.
(3) Identify individual servicemembers specifically to receive additional training, arms and ammunition.
(4) Grant authority in writing by name for servicemembers to be armed by individual weapons carry along with any restrictions or limiting factors involved in the transport, use, qualification, storage, and carrying of individual weapons.
SEC 4. Duration of this Act
(a) Effective date – This act shall shall be in full force and effective with the signing into law of the NDAA of 2016.
(b) Sunset Clause – The provisions of this act shall be null, void and of no force and effect 180 days after the conclusion of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) official date is determined. The official dates of the GWOT conflict will coincide with those established for the award of the Department of Defense medal known as the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal (GWOTSM).
Symbiote (Novel by Sandra A. Kelly)
Symbiote – Sandra A. Kelly proudly describes SYMBIOTE as a “medical ‘what-if’ thriller/suspense novel” revolving around HIV mutations, research, and treatments.
This book tells the story of a young Crime Scene Investigator who inadvertently contracts HIV. His story involves how the “parasite” affects his personal and professional life and the two medical researchers who have his best interest at heart, but have two different theories regarding his treatment. The amazing results will leave you wondering and hoping for what might be waiting just around the corner…that a cure may be at hand!
Kelly takes the widely held premise of HIV infection and then stands it on its head with creative inventiveness in SYMBIOTE. Mature content involving medical concepts, romance, humor, and sexual situations is tastefully incorporated and not overdone.
No Thought Left Behind (Book of essays by Sandra A. Kelly)
No Thought Left Behind – This book is an easy read that you will enjoy wherever you open it. It is private at times and also general. The book is abounding with laughs and there is nothing to do except enjoy it, in a bubble bath, recliner, with a glass of wine or at the gym on an exercise bike. The author is hopeful that this offering will delight her readers for years.