Are Your Going to be Drafted?
From Rod Powers,
Your Guide to U.S. Military.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
What are the Chances of a Military Draft in the U.S.?
It seems that ever since the first Gulf War (1990), every other year or so, some nitwit in the House and/or Senate introduce a bill to re-instate the draft. The latest such idiocy came in the form of Senate Bill 89, introduced by Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC), and House Resolution 163, introduced by Representative Charles B. Rangel (D-NY). Both bills would require two years of military service (or community service for those who are medically unqualified) for every male and female in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26 (more about the impossibility of this later).
Don't worry folks. Both bills were introduced in January 2003, and members of the House and Senate quickly referred them to committee, where they remain today (and will stay until they die a painless death).
However, I fully expect some other Congressmen and Senators will use the issue of the draft to get themselves on the Sunday morning talk shows before this legislative year is over. When that happens, traditionally, my email box becomes full of letters from concerned 18-year olds and parents, wondering whether they (or their kids) are going to be forced to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Is a draft likely? What exactly is \"the draft?\" Who is likely to be drafted? What happens during a draft?
Will a draft happen?
Almost certainly not, unless the United States gets involved in a major, major conflict (on the scale of World War II). Probably not even then, for several reasons.
Military Size and Needs. By law, each year Congress sets the maximum size of the active duty and reserve forces. They do this by passing the Military Authorization Act and Military Appropriations Act. Each year, Congress has the option to increase the authorized size of the military -- and they have chosen not to do so (exception -- last year -- in 2003 -- Congress authorized the Army to TEMPORARILY increase in size by 20,000 -- a drop in the bucket. This temporary increase in size is to help the Army through a planned reorganization, not because Congress wants to have a larger Army).
In order to meet the Congressionally-mandated size, the military needs to sign up a certain number of new recruits each year, and re-enlist a certain percentage of recruits already in. For the past several years, the services have been doing extremely well in both of these endeavors. Last year, the services turned away more recruits than they enlisted. Re-enlistments are at an all-time high. In fact, the Air Force found themselves in the embarrassing position of having too many troops this year (2004), and are actively encouraging several thousands to apply for early discharge. Recruiting is doing so well this year (2004), that new recruits, who are accepted, often have to wait six or seven months in the Delayed Enlistment Program (DEP) in order for a \"slot\" to open up for them. For more info, see All Volunteer Force, Proven.
The state of our economy is only one reason for high recruiting/retention rates. Much more significant, in my opinion, is the way the media has portrayed our troops for the past fourteen or so years (since the first Gulf War). Unlike the Vietnam era, and years immediately following, where the media showcased our military troops in a negative fashion, today our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines are portrayed as dedicated heroes (as well they should be). This has a noticeable effect on how our Nation's youth view military service. They turn on the news, or watch a movie (Saving Private Ryan, G.I. Jane, Top Gun, Blackhawk Down, etc., ad infinitum), and they see excitement and adventure. All the recruiting commercials in the World, and all the pay raises of the past ten years have had less of a positive effect on military recruiting, than has this shift in the way our troops have been percieved by the general public in recent years.
Page 2
Is our military too small? Certainly. Our active duty and reserve forces are being required to deploy (leave home) far more often than what is conducive to good morale (but, one certainly doesn't see this in the re-enlistment rates, which remain at an all-time high). Our military isn't too small because of a lack of volunteers -- it's too small because our elected officials do not wish to spend the money on a larger military force. However, with the current enlistment and re-enlistment rates, Congress could triple the size of our military, and a draft would still not be necessary. Remember, we're turning them away in droves -- things that wouldn't cause an \"eye-blink\" in the past, today require waivers to qualify, and -- as long as recruiting is going well, waiver approval is getting harder and harder to get.
Just by approving more waivers, DOD could still fill the ranks with sufficient volunteers, even if Congress tripled the size of the military.
In order for a draft to even be necessary, Congress would have to increase the size of our military by SEVERAL MILLION (which literally means several BILLIONS of dollars per year in personnel costs). That ain't likely to happen.
Recently, the Army announced they are recalling over 5,000 IRRs to active duty. As I said before, there is no doubt that our active duty forces (especially the Army) are not sufficient. However, the Army is not recalling these forces to active duty because they don't have enough volunteers. The Army is being forced to recall them because Congress has failed to act to significantly increase the authorized size of the active duty forces. Under the Presidential Call-up Authority, the Army can bring these reserve forces temporarily to active duty, without violating their Congressionally-mandated active duty strength ceilings.
If Congress would simply authorize the size of the Active Duty Army by about 200,000, recall of IRR would not be necessary, and the Army could easily fill these slots with the volunteer recruits which they are now forced to turn away at the recruiter's doors.
Training. For more than a quarter of a century, the United States Military has been an \"all volunteer\" service. During that time, the military has dramatically (and successfully!) changed the way it trains and the way it fights. In order to implement a draft, we would have to change the entire way the military trains and operates today. This would (in my opinion, and the opinion of senior military leaders) result in a much less effective military.
A draft is a good way to fight wars of 50 years ago. It is a lousy way to fight wars today. Today's military members are highly trained professionals. The days of giving a couple month's of training on firing a rifle and tossing a grenade, then sending men off to combat are long, long gone. In today's military, even the basic infantry is \"high tech.\" You don't train someone to operate and maintain highly sophisticated military equipment overnight. It takes a minimum of 18 months to 2 years to turn out a trained Soldier, Airman, Sailor, or Marine. It takes even longer than that for many military specialties.
In short, if we instituted a draft today, inductees would not be effective until about two years from now (at which time, their two year service commitment would be over).
Qualifications/Disqualifications. A significant problem with a draft is that Congress would have to repeal the \"Don't Ask, Don't Tell\" legislation which allows homosexuals to serve in the armed forces, as long as they keep their sexual preferences secret. Under current rules, \"open\" homosexuals are not allowed to serve. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that anyone (especially today's \"youth\") who do not wish to serve would have no problems with claiming homosexuality in order to escape military service. (Note: Many people feel that \"Don't Ask, Don't Tell\" should be repealed anyway, but that's another topic).
For more than 20 years, each of the military services have come to rely upon the Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) testing program to determine whether or not one has the aptitude to learn military jobs. If a draft were re-instituted, it would be far too easy for individuals who did not wish to serve to intentionally score low on this exam. The military would have no way of knowing which skills these individuals would be capable of learning. As I said, even today's infantry is \"high tech,\" and we have to have the ability to determine whether or not one even has the mental capability of succeeding before we waste thousands of taxpayers dollars to pay for the training.
In order to maintain a highly-trained, professional force, the military has tightened up enlistment standards during the past 30 years. No longer are judges allowed to tell someone, \"Join the military or go to jail\" (the military is not allowed to accept such applicants). Those with criminal offenses, even as juveniles, require a hard-to-get waiver.
Page 3
Those with a history of drug abuse (other than minor experimentation with marijuana) are ineligible for enlistment. There are hundreds of medical conditions (either current, or past history of) that render one ineligible to join our armed forces. Without a high school diploma or GED, one is ineligible to join, and -- only about 10 percent each year can have GEDs.
All of these increased standards, along with unsurpassed technology, have made the United States Military the most powerful military in the World (no other country's military even comes close). If we were to re-instate the draft, and the military was forced to accept everyone, regardless of criminal/drug/medical/test score qualifications, we would be larger, but much, much less effective. It's not numbers that count. It's training and technology.
Lock two people in a room the size of a football field, one armed with 100 rocks, and the other, an expert, professionally-trained and motivated sharpshooter, armed with a precision rifle and three rounds of ammunition. Who is likely to come out alive?
Mandatory Public Service. I often hear individuals state that everyone should serve a term in the U.S. Military. Such individuals feel it's possible to force someone to be patriotic (we proved this false during the Vietnam draft-era). While I personally think that a term of military service would benefit most of our youths, mandated military service or public service is not a good idea. The purpose of the military is to \"kill people and break things\" -- to be the best fighting force possible (there is nothing more useless than a second-best military). It's not the purpose of our armed forces to provide a \"learning experience,\" or \"maturing experience\" for our Nation's youth. If that's the goal, create some other kind of program -- but leave our Nation's defense out of it. You can't force patriotism on someone. Most military personnel I know would rather serve alongside someone who has volunteered to be there, not some small percentage of the population dragged there by threat of prison.
Police officers and firemen also perform an extremely valuable public service, and are necessary to the safety of our nation. So, why don't we consider drafting people, against their wills, to supplement those forces? Why do some of us feel its perfectly justified to conscript non-volunteers into our military, but not other areas of important public service? Would you want a non-volunteer patrolling the streets to protect you from crime, or responsible to try and save your burning house? Of course not. So why would one want a non-volunteer to fight our wars and protect our National Security?
Crunching the Numbers. Back to the two pieces of legislation I mention at the beginning of this article: Remember, both bills would require military service (or community service for those who don't medically qualify for military service) for everyone between the ages of 20 and 26. According to the Selective Service, there are currently 11 million men eligible for the draft in that age-range. However, both bills apply to women as well, so about 22 million would be required to serve. Keep in mind that these bills do not just require a portion of them to be drafted, they require everyone to serve.
With all due respect to the good senator and representative, they're full of it, and they know it. There is absolutely no way this country could afford a military with 22 million people serving. Rangel and Hollings introduced the legislation to make a political point (they are against the war in Iraq), not because they think the bills have any chance of passing. They can't pass, and the congressmen know it. Let's do some simple arithmetic:
For the sake of simpler mathematics, we'll assume that all 22 million \"draftees\" are serving in the grade of E-1 (the lowest enlisted grade). They won't be, of course, but it makes the math easier. An E-1 in today's military starts off with a base pay of $1193.40 per month. $1193.40 multiplied by 22 million comes to $26,254,800,000. That's a payroll of 26 BILLION dollars per month, just in the basic pay. Multiply that by 12, and it's a yearly payroll of $315,057,600,000 (315 BILLION dollars!).
Well, if we have a draft, we don't need to pay that much, right? Okay, assume we give these 22 million troops \"slave wages,\" and just pay them $500 per month. That would still equal a base-pay expense of $12,500,000,000 (12 BILLION dollars) per month, or $150,000,000,000 (150 BILLION dollars) per year.
Let's not forget that we have to feed these troops. It costs the military about $150 per month to feed an enlisted member (assuming they eat all meals in the chow hall). So, we'll have to add $39,600,000,000 (39 BILLION dollars) to our annual military budget for food.
Page 4
Where are all these people going to live? Are we going to build new barracks for all of them (About two or three million dollars per building)? What about those with spouses and children? Are we going to pay them a housing allowance so they can afford rent, or allow those children to live in the streets? Right now, we give married military members a housing allowance that (depending on location) averages about $500 per month. Assume that only 30% of those 22 million (6.6 million) have families. That's a housing budget of at least $3,300,000,000 per month.
Now add the costs for uniforms, equipment, training, relocation expenses, etc. Give me a break. This just ain 't gonna happen, folks. We can barely afford our current force-levels of about 1.5 million members on active duty.
Our country does not need a draft.
We have a million and a half highly trained, professional Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines currently on active duty. Additionally, we have 1.3 million in the Guard and Reserves. Together, these 2.8 million \"all volunteer\" professionals can handle any foreseeable military conflict. Also, let's not forget the millions in the inactive reserves, or the millions of military retirees who, by law, can be recalled to active duty at any time.
The Selective Service has issued the following official statement concerning the likelihood of a draft:
The Selective Service System remains in a standby, caretaker status. On Wednesday, September 18, 2002, in response to a question about the draft, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld indicated that there was \"not a chance\" of reinstituting the draft. According to Rumsfeld, the military is successful in attracting and retaining talented people in sufficient numbers.
It would take legislative action by the Congress and implementation by the President to reinstate a draft in an emergency.
The Selective Service System, like all Federal agencies, is ready to accomplish its missions. While no heightened measures have been undertaken to bring the Nation closer to reestablishing conscription, young men are reminded that they are still required by existing Federal law to register with Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday. Late registrations are accepted, but not if a man is 26 years old or older. .
There are several web sites out there with the intented purpose of trying to convince you that a draft is coming. Many of these quote \"reliable sources,\" (without proof), and some of them post outright lies. For example, I've read on several sites that (as proof that a draft is coming) that the Selective Service has received a $28 Million increase in funding. Simply not true (not even close to true).
The Selective Service must evaluate its effectiveness every year and report on it (to Congress) to obtain funding. Every Government agency must do this. One of the things Selective Service must report on is the status of local draft, and how they will use their allocated funds to improve efficiency. They've been doing this every year for the past 24 years! THIS IS NOTHING NEW.
In Fiscal Year 2004, the Selective Service received $26.1 Million for its annual operating budget. Some web sites have misquoted this as a $28 Million INCREASE, where -- in fact -- what they actually received ($26.1 Million) is just a small increase over what they received the year before (didn't even match the inflation rate).
Another thing I've read on certain web sites (again, as \"proof\" the draft is coming) is that the Selective Service put up an \"advertisement\" on a government web site, asking for volunteers to serve on local draft boards. Guess what? The Selective Service recruits and trains new draft board members each and every year. They've been doing this now, every year, for 24 years!
No, don't expect the initiation of a draft, anytime soon. It ain 't gonna happen.
