Military Officers Association of America "Symposium Panelists Dubious on Draft"

[jody]

Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) Symposium Panelists Dubious on Draft

If attendees expected any of the panelists to call for reinstitution of the draft, they were disappointed. One thing the panelists appeared to agree on - especially in their answers to multiple questioners on that topic after their prepared remarks - was their belief that Congress and the country wouldn't stand for that in any scenario short of a war for national survival.

The panelists all agreed that the AVF today is clearly highly motivated, of superb quality, and more capable than the conscription force. General McCaffrey said that shortly after the draft was ended in the early 1970s, "You couldn't find a general in the Army who liked the all-volunteer force. But 10 years later, when they saw the quality they were getting, you couldn't find one who wanted to go back to the draft."

"Generally speaking, we've quadrupled the number of lowest mental category recruits, we've quadrupled the number of non-high school graduates, and we're granting 6,000 to 8,000 more moral waivers," he said. "When you tell me that you think enlisting a 42-year-old grandmother is the right thing to do, you don't understand what we're doing. We need 19-year-old boys and girls in good health to carry guns and fight."

Several panelists highlighted an issue that MOAA has pushed for years - that today's forces are far too small for the huge missions that have been thrust upon them. "Are we undermanned?" asked McCaffrey. "Of course we are…we need our resources and our strategy to match our rhetoric….the active duty Army is 80,000 soldiers short, the Marines are 25,000 short, Coast Guard ought to 75,000 people, the border patrol ought to be 45,000, and the National Guard 600,000."

[nickyt]

1. self-delete

[happyslug]

2. Typical RHA RHA comments.

Any organizations, military or civilian, has a tendency to see itself as the best that can be. The Draftee Army of 1965 was the best Army the US has ever fielded. You had the start of the Baby boomers going it so that the Military could be selective as to whom it picked, and the fear of being drafted forced many a young man to enlist in the Air Force, Navy to avoid service in the Infantry (and many a young man enlisted into the Army and Marines so they could select their job in the military thus avoiding service in the combat Arms).

During the 1970s you saw the transition to the All-voluntary Force (AVF). It was a rough transition do more to the collapse of the NCO ranks during Vietnam (do to fighting the War) then the transition to an all volunteer force. Once the transition took place, actual combat was NEVER mentioned to any potential recruit, only that the Military was a 9-5 job with some exceptions like sea duty for the Navy and Marines, and field duty for the other services (and the Marines). Do to the fact the baby boomers were coming of age and having a tough time finding a job, and the Military reduced its fighting strength after Vietnam to a One and One half war posture (I.e. fight one offensive war in one area and a defensive action in another) from the two and a half war posture of the late 1960s, the Military was able to get the number of enlistees needed of the caliber they needed.

Now the baby boom is traditionally given from 1947 till 1964 (In 1965 you had a severe drop in the number of baby's being born, the peak year for births was 1947). If you add 20 years to these numbers you get 1967 till 1984. Many a baby boomer enlisted while into their late 20s (and some in their early 30s) so throughout the 1980s the military had a good pool of recruits to pull from. This started to dry up in the late 1980s, but at that time the Soviet union imploded. With the destruction of the Soviet Union, the size of the US Military could be Reduced. During the 1990s the US military was actually reduced by almost a 1/3 in numbers, mostly in the Army and Marines (Do to the fact the Army uses more men and women than the other services, while the other services uses more high tech equipment which had good lobbyists lobbying for the high tech).

This was the Military that went into Iraq. An military 2/3 of the size it had been 15 years before. One of the problem with the reduction in the 1990s is how many people LEFT the military during that time period. If you read about the military under Clinton all you hear about was how many Junior Officers and NCOs were leaving to take higher paying jobs in the Civilian sector. The concern in the late 1990s was that the Military was soon NOT going to have sufficient number of Senior Officers and NCOs do to most of the people who would become Senior left when they were a Junior Officer (or NCO).

Now, with Iraq, the decisions of the 1990s are coming back to haunt us. First, the Transformation of the Military, has been a problem. You have people lobbying in Congress and the Pentagon for this or that high tech piece of equipment, lobbying to keep ships afloat in Naval Stations, but no one was lobbying for the transformation actually needed. Anyone who looked at the problem the US would face between 1990 and 2020 kept one saying one thing, the next war was going to be a gator type war and an occupational type war. In such conflicts the opposition will have little or no Air Capability, thus many question the need to even keep the F-15 let alone replace it with the F-22 Raptor (Though many would keep the F-15 to be able to fight the latest Russian fighter, the SU-27 Flanker, but at least one Air Force General made the recommendation to adopt the Su-27. Now that General did not think the SU-27 was better than the F-15, but that since the Air Frames of most the of Air Forces F-15 were nearing their operation life, it would be better to adopt the Su-27 and upgrade it with US electronics, than to wait for the F-22 to come on line. His rational was the best plane the US would FACE was the Su-27 without US electronics, thus the US, flying SU-27s with US electronics would equal or better any potential enemy, at a faction of the Cost of the F-22 program).

Anyway, back to the problem, potential wars between 1990 and 2020. China would NOT be in a position to fight BEYOND the borders of Japan till after 2020 (if at any time), Europe if Europe turns against the US would take almost as long to equal existing US capability. Furthermore as either expanded their capability the US would see that expansion and could counter that expansion. Given that a Carrier only last about 40 years before it has to be scarped (or severely overhauled) any Carriers built today would have to be replaced at about the time China or Europe starts to be able to counter our Carrier and Air Force Strength. In simple terms, what we build today will have little or no bearing on what will will use in any wars in the 2030s or 2040s. Remember we built our last Conventional Carriers in the 1960s and are presently in the process of scarping them. The Enterprise, our first Nuclear Carrier will follow shortly afterward, it is at the end of its operational life. You may get another 20 years out of it but the better solution would be to mothball it for the next 20 years and than scape it and build a new Carrier to replace it.

I go into the above for a lot of people lie to point out "The US needs to be strong Military". I agree with that statement, but Strong Military is not the same thing as having the most Carriers, or most Tanks or most planes if such equipment is NOT THE RIGHT EQUIPMENT FOR THE THE WARS THE US WILL BE FIGHTING. We may need Carriers and the F-22 Raptor in 20-30 years but additional Carriers or Planes will NOT help us win the Wars we will be fighting for the next 20 years. The wars we will be fighting are something like the Existing Iraq war. Less lighting attack and more occupational duties. Less F-15 dog-fighting SU-27s and more infantry patrols. Less Air Strikes from Carriers, and more Marines landing on beaches and behind beaches in Helicopters. We need more a Gator-Navy to support such operations and less Carriers. The old Battleships and their 16 inch guns and 16 inch belt armor and almost instantaneous on call fire power within the range of their old guns of over 30 miles with modern ammunitions than a Carrier whose planes takes 20 minutes to reach the target (and an good argument can be made for construction of such an off-shore gun platform given that with modern technology you can design guns and ships so the guns can have a 200 mile range).

The big problem with the present Military (and has been the problem since the 1990s) is the Military is set up to fight a old Red Army, but the Red Army is no more. You rarely will have a armor attack like the one in 2002 when the US took Baghdad, most wars will be like the IRaq wars has been since, a slow war of attrition where the number of boots on the grounds is more important than who had the high technology. What are the three biggest threats to the US in IRaq? The AK-27, the RPG-7 and the IED, all based on technology of the 1880s (All could have been built with technology available in the decade following Custer's Defeat).

Thus what the US needs (and needed since at least the early 1990s) is an expansion of the Army and the Marines (with expansion of the Combat arms in each expanded at the expense of the non-combat arms). LEss use of large high tech tanks like the M-1 and replacement with Cheaper and easier to transport tracked Light Tanks and Medium Tanks (A tank heavy enough to stop a RPG-7 but no more, about the weight of the old WWII M4 Sherman with a 105mm gun, I do NOT see the US tank forces facing tanks over the next 20 years, given the US Air Power no one will be able so they will not try). Get rid of the Self-peopled artillery and go back to the 105mm towed. The 105mm has sufficient range for this type of operation and this would be a much cheaper to operate than the 155 SPs we are using now.

As to the Air Force, the A-10 should be put back in production to provide air support (or buy the SU-25 Frogfoot as ground support aircraft) instead of the much more expensive "Joint Strike Fighter" the F-35. I have to comment given the advancement of aircraft technology and anti-Aircraft Technology, we are approaching an era where maned aircraft may become obsolete in 20 years. Anti-Aircraft technology has advance so much that Maned Air Craft are having to launch their weapons hundreds of miles away from the target to avoid being shot down. Sooner or later the rationale for launching the weapon from a aircraft at all will become pointless. Thus while the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters are two of the best planes in the world today, in 20 years they very likely will be obsolete. Not because they will be better fighters, but because do to improved anti-aircraft defense they will have no better ability to enter hostile air space than the A-10. On the opposite side, if they are NO air Defense, the A-10 will still be able to do the job of the F-22 and F-35 at the fraction of the costs. Thus in my opinion it is a waste of money to buy the F-35 and F-22 for they will be useless in a war like we are fighting in Iraq today. Furthermore when the US faces forces where the F-22 and F-35 may be used, that will be 20 years from now and they will be obsolete by then (Please note I do NOT say we should NOT do research, which we must do, but don't waste money or military items that will NOT be more useful in the wars we will be fighting for the next 20 years).

AS to the Navy, we needed only 4 Carriers doing the FIRST GULF War, why do we need 12 today? When we will need 12 Carriers (Not before 2020), most of these Carriers will be obsolete or need a severe re-haul. The better solution is to bring in more Gator-Any Carriers and transport to support our troops in any wars they will be fighting. The Carriers are NOT obsolete, they are just a Weapon is search of an enemy. When the Soviet Union was around we had to fear a three way attack, Europe, the Mid-East and Asia. In such an Attack 12 Carriers made sense. Once the Soviet Union imploded, they was no need for 12 carriers and will not be a need for at least 20 years. One way to use these Carriers may be to re-build some of them to haul troops and helicopters instead of jets. It would be one way to support our troops on the grounds in any future combat area.

This brings me to the Draft. Look at the above, what is needed is less support elements in the Military and more actual combat troops. This transformation has NOT occurred. The Air Force and Navy has fought it for they will be the losers in such a transformation. The Army has had problems getting the troops it needs so it is NOT fighting for a greater share it knows it can NOT do with current enlistment levels (The same is true of the Marines). The National Guard is hurting the worse, but it always gets the junk from the other services and its lobbying power is minimal compared to the Military contractors (Who sees large profits in selling high tech to the Military and make sure as little money as possible goes to the troops, for more money to troops means less money for high tech.

Thus, the Draft is needed, the National Guard is undermanned and will continued to be undermanned without the draft. The Army is also undermanned, but not as bad as the National Guard. The Army believes it can survive without the Draft, but its combat Arms are hurting. The Air Force and Navy can getting sufficient recruits do to no one wanting to go into the Army, thus they have no push for the Draft. The Army sees the Draft as coming with a review of its mission. You may see Congress re-form the Army to reflect what the Army will be doing instead of the M-1 Tanks and other high tech items the Army brass wants (And wants more in the way of getting themselves promoted do to the introduction of a new weapon than in actually improving the military capability of the Military against the Enemies the US army will face over the next 20 years).

Furthermore the Pentagon sees a Draft as forcing it to address the difference in pay between the Military and Civilian sectors FOR HIGH END EMPLOYEES. The Pentagon see Congress re-instating the Original GI Bill with its benefits 100% pay for by the taxpayer as opposed to the present GI Bill which the Soldier has to pay into to get Collage Benefits (and if he or she pays into the fund AND NEVER USES THE FUND, THEY DO NOT GET THEIR MONEY BACK).

All of this cutting out funds for Programs the Pentagon favors for benefits to the enlistees and ex-enlistees. All of the panelist are high end Pentagon types, whose first loyalty is to the Pentagon not even their own Troops. A draftee Army would bring with it to much accountability from Congress for the Pentagon to be happy, thus the Pentagon prefer a enlistee Army so if someone complains the Pentagon can point out his or her decision was "Voluntary" not the product of force. The last thing the Pentagon wants is Accountability and along with the Draft comes a lot of people who KNOW who to complain to and will if they are treated unfairly while in the Military.