The Burdens of War
Defending the All-volunteer Force: A Rejoinder to Lt. Col. Paul Yingling – Dr. Curtis Gilroy, Armed Forces Journal.
In his article, “The Founders’ Wisdom,” in the January issue of Armed Forces Journal, Lt. Col. Paul Yingling argues that the “U.S. should … abandon the all-volunteer military and return to our historic reliance on citizen soldiers and conscription to wage protracted war.” He offers several reasons in support of his argument. First, a conscripted force of citizen soldiers would ensure that the burdens of war are felt equally in every community in America. Second, a conscripted force would provide the means to expand the Army to the sufficient size to meet its commitments. Third, such a force would enable the military to be more discriminating than a volunteer military in selecting those with the skills and attributes most required to fight today’s wars. Finally, he believes a conscripted force would be less expensive. I respectfully disagree and will address each point in turn in four sections that follow.
Regardless of one’s opinion of the management and progress of the war on terrorism, and contrary to the view of Yingling, the all-volunteer force has been an amazing success. The U.S. is fighting a protracted war with a volunteer military, and has sustained combat operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan for more than eight years while continuing to meet ongoing obligations around the globe. Even when unemployment rates were near-record lows in 2007, straining recruiting, the military still had tens of thousands of young men and women on waiting lists to join. In fiscal 2009, all four services, both the active and reserve components, met or exceeded their numerical recruiting goals, as well as their recruit quality standards in terms of education and aptitude. Retention also remained high – in many cases, one’s tour of duty in a combat zone actually increased the likelihood of staying in the military…
More at Armed Forces Journal.
Whose Burden? – Lt. Col Paul Yingling, Armed Forces Journal.
While I appreciate Curtis Gilroy’s spirited defense of the all-volunteer force, his article misrepresents or avoids many of my arguments. In the interest of fostering a more candid dialogue, I would like to pose the following questions:
The Defense Department supports its claim that the armed forces represent American society by grouping into the “top quintile” both middle-income families and multibillionaires. The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans owns 38 percent of our country’s wealth and wields a commensurate degree of political influence. However, DoD does not track the degree to which these most-privileged Americans serve in our armed forces. Why not?
Gilroy claims that “the services have been very successful in quickly adjusting end strength to changing requirements and wartime needs.” Why is the Army unable to meet its goal of providing two years of dwell time between yearlong deployments?
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have dramatically increased the demands on “strategic corporals” – junior enlisted personnel who make tactical decisions with strategic consequences. Between 2001 and 2007, the percentage of high school graduates enlisting in the Army dropped from 90 percent to 79 percent. Given the increased demands of the battlefield, shouldn’t DoD have raised enlistment standards between 2001 and 2007? If not, why not? …
More at Armed Forces Journal.
