Don't even talk about Iran. The United States Army is already way overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its recruitment record is the worst in a generation.
Standards have already been lowered. In 2003, the year the United States invaded and occupied Iraq, 4.6 percent of recruits — most of whom had committed either multiple misdemeanors or a felony — had to be given a "moral waiver" before being admitted into the Army. By 2006, 11 percent of new Army recruits had a criminal record and needed that same moral waiver. In 2007, that figure had jumped to 13 percent.
Add to this bad news the bleak academic record: The Army's stated goal remains that 90 percent of its recruits be high-school graduates because that achievement has proven to be a strong indicator of future success in the military. The percentage of recruits with a high-school diploma dropped in 2007 to its lowest level in 25 years. In 2005, nearly 84 percent of Army recruits were high-school graduates, but by 2007 that figure had fallen to just over 70 percent. Pentagon studies have found that nearly half of the Army recruits who had dropped out of high school before graduating went on to drop out of the military before completion of their enlistment tour.
The Army is now offering high-school graduates who enlist a signing bonus of $40,000, which they can use after they complete their service obligation.
Even with its lower admission standards, the stretched-thin Army apparently has relaxed its own standards. In recent years, one out of three enlistees had been failing to complete their initial enlistment tour, compared to one out of 10 draftees between 1940 and 1973. In 2006, 94 percent of Army recruits successfully completed basic training, compared to just 82 percent one year earlier.
America's pre-eminent military sociologist, Professor Charles Moskos, reports that the Army's new unofficial recruiting slogan, as told to him by a military recruiter, is "Don't Ask, Don't Spell."
Moskos, himself an Army draftee during the Cold War, lists just a few of the consequences of the recruiting crisis: The increasing dependence on civilian contractors, of whom there are approximately 20,000 in Iraq (the second largest force there after the U.S.
military), "performing combat-related functions." These private entities operate outside of any military chain of command, and their real cost is almost impossible to determine.
Moskos — who sees even greater pressure being imposed upon the Army Reserves as well as increased reliance upon recruiting non-American citizens into the Army to make up the shortfall — has a solution: He urges an 18-month draft of American males in the active military followed by 18 months in the regular reserve or National Guard.
Here is his special wrinkle: Recalling 1958, when 70 percent of American men age 26 were either then serving or had already served in the U.S. military, Moskos argues that "any conscription system must start at the top of the social ladder in order to win widespread public acceptance."
In World War II, he reminds us, "America's privileged youths were recruited at a significantly higher rate than were their counterparts in lower socio-economic groups." What we have during this war with the proliferation of "Support the Troops" bumper-stickers, he says, is " patriotism lite."
To those ready to object on grounds that a draft would constitute "involuntary servitude" or that volunteers are more highly motivated to serve, let it be pointed out that during the Cold War two times as many volunteers as draftees failed to complete their initial enlistment. And in Vietnam, according to the U.S. Army Research Institute, draftees had lower desertion and AWOL rates than did volunteers.
We have three remaining presidential candidates, each of whom has publicly pledged to enlarge significantly the U.S. military. But none of the three has had the courage or the candor to confront reality and admit the all-volunteer system is unable to recruit a representative, educated and psychologically well-adjusted U.S. Army. John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton owe it to the nation to listen to an authentic and wise patriot, professor and ex-GI, Charlie Moskos.
To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
COPYRIGHT 2008 MARK SHIELDS
|
 |
Comments
|
5 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Dear Mark Shield's;
Sir, thank you for this article, and for your News Hour presentation of essentially the same argument. I am afraid this only points out what should be too obvious, that we have went to war without the most important weapon in our magazine, and that is consensus. Those who seek war first and consensus after are trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Where has that gotten us? The military has an advantage on every employer in this country as I understand it. They can give an intelligence test to every one looking for a job. A little history would be as good as an intelligence test in my opinion. No group in this country has been as badly used and so soon forgotten as our soldiers. Looking at the facts, why would anyone join? I can see why the military might want bodies in uniform. Gengus Khan and his generals mounted clothing packed with straw when he attacked, to draw fire from the real men. Perhaps the new recruit is our version of the straw man on horse back, fighting over the same territory as the Khans. In any event, what choice has any man of any calibre but to fight for a land that is increasingly hopeless, over extended, and morally and financially bankrupt? It would be one thing if it meant something for the soldier, -some security, rights, or property at the end of the ordeal. What can the Goverment offer its defenders but inflated currency? To me, it is a pity. It is not just that those who are most blessed with brains and education do not wish to fight in an ill advised war; but that those who actually own this country, -the government, the institutions of every sort, point blank refuse to pay the wages of the soldiers who defend what is their country, and their property, and rather, insist that the children of those who have nothing should pay for those who have nothing to go an beat on others who have nothing in their own lands as well. One portion of this society defends the whole place while most of those who own the vast majority of the property will not pay a penny or lift a finger to defend what they alone enjoy. Do you think there might be revolution with a draft? I fear that the whole country is only looking for a reason to submit to slavery for a moment of security. I think we all know that what our goverment does in foreign lands for special interests it would gladly do to us if we got in the way. Do not fear revolution. It has come and gone.
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:45 AM
|
|
|
|
Mark, nice jab at our collective denial. It's going to be a long fight.
This really is becoming the decade that will stand out as a historical test of how long we can keep ourselves afloat by clinging to the life-raft of fantasy. There really is a unifying theme here, whether we look at the economy, politics, or the planet itself. We are collectively fiddling and sparks are flying everywhere in the highly combustible city-state of Rome.
The most disturbing concern is, of course, the planet. We have Bernanke's bag of slick tricks to bail us out of our financial idiocy (for a little while, anyway), and we actually can just withdraw troops from Iraq tomorrow (Unthinkable? Think again. The unthinkable has already happened--you just have to look hard in the mirror and face up to it) and stop throwing good money after bad (Time to chuck that used car while we're at it, too), but what do we do when we finally wake up and realize that we have irretrievably trashed the very world we live in? It's not a rat cage that can be cleaned out once it fills up with crap. But that's the way we treat it as we cram it fuller and fuller with our increasingly rodent-like selves.
Sorry folks, especially you in the religious right, there will be no process for petitioning God to save us when the cage gets to stinking so bad you have to poke your snout through the bars to get a decent breath of air. Besides, if God exists he must be pretty darn pissed to see people purporting to believe in him when they're perfectly happy to drive into extinction without a second thought every precious species he has created that doesn't happen to fit their standards of convenience. Wake up, wake up, the world we grew up in is going away.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Masako
Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:41 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Masako;
Sir; have you ever read of Tiberius Gracchus who tried to implement the Agrarian reforms in in Rome before his near relative Julius Casare took hold? Rome was like America is now, -over run by slaves; and slave labor, while inefficient, was able to drive the peasant farmers from the land so that great landholders and a twentieth of the population held all the land. Passing through Etruria, Tiberius had noted the darth of inhabitants, and the fact that those who tended the flocks and tilled the fields were foreign slaves. He said in a speech in 133, that: The beasts of the fields and the birds of the air have their holes and their hiding places; but the men who fight and die for Italy enjoy only the light and the air. Our Generals urge their soldiers to fight for the graves and shrines of their ancestors. The appeal is idle and false. You cannot point to any paternal alter. You have no ancestral tomb. You fight and die to give wealth and luxury to others. You are called masters of the world, but there is not a foot of ground you can call your own. Quoted from Will and Arial Durant's -Caesar and Christ. The thing is, that we are becoming a dispossessed people, and it has been happening since Jackson sold out the Natives to settle a national debt that could be run up at will. If you won't work for slave wages, someone will be found, or the job will be shipped to the slaves. At some point we have to forget about rights and hang on to dear life. And that is what is happening to our army. People with nothing very often have the sense to know they have nothing to die for. And I have people in the military, and it is because there is no opportunity. They are not all going to die. They are not all going to get wounded. They are not all going to suffer from stress. When it is all said and done, most of them will have given their time, and part of their life to a government, and an effort, that will give them nothing. The reason this people has not been asked to sacrifice is that there has never been an end to it. We sacrificed to beat the soviets. We sacrificed to pay down the national debt. Where is the peace dividend? Where is the peace? The more you give to the government the more it takes, and if you don't like it, you can be replaced by a slave or a computer for a fraction of the cost.
Thanks.
Sweeney
Comment: #3
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:21 PM
|
|
|
|
Dear Mark,
This is the only way I found to reach you to say that last night's debacle on ABC for me was the culmination of our descent into yellow jounalism. I am left truly dismayed, disappointed, and unbelieving by the experience and even more so after reading David Brooks op-ed today. There's great anger being expressed by members of all parties, more than 9,000 posts on the ABC blog by 11:00 pm PDT last night - mostly angry at the conduct of the debate. Both ABC phone lines were jammed, but I finally got my 30 seconds. The comments on David's article were turned off at 94.
You are the one person trust to challenge this in front of a national TV and radio audience, and The Lehrer News Hour is the one program that I trust to allow it. I will be pulling for you and the program on Friday.
I just wanted to offer my thoughts to you - and my increasing desperation as a 64-year-old non-flag pin wearing, patriotic woman voter. I just retired as CEO of an international organization and know that this morning the world too will be dismayed - or worse still - laughing at us.
Comment: #4
Posted by: MP Flinn
Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:08 AM
|
|
|
|
From: georgedavidson@comcast.net
Subject: To David Brooks -re: today's (4/18) column
Date: April 18, 2008 8:00:50 AM PDT
To: publisher@nytimes.com
Justifying the unjustifiable.
You've obviously drunk the Kool-aid. Our country, indeed the world, we're all on the Titanic and you write of bowling scores. In a word or two, you, David Brooks are out of touch. Please do not vomit this ridiculous, see below, nonsense tonight on NPR.
"Then there are the cultural issues. Charles "Glibson" and George "Stupidhanopoulos" of ABC News are taking a lot of heat for spending so much time asking about Jeremiah Wright and the “bitter” comments. But the fact is that voters want a president who basically shares their values and life experiences. Fairly or not, they look at symbols like Michael Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry's windsurfing or John Edwards's haircut as clues about shared values....when he makes ill-informed comments about working-class voters, when he bowls a 37 for crying out loud, voters are going to wonder if he's one of them."
By the way, before I decide if your columns are worth reading, could you send me your latest bowling score. Perhaps you should reread Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels, Swift rather effectively deals with people of your persuasion.
George E. Davidson
Larkspur CA
Comment: #5
Posted by: George E. Davidson
Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:30 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
