Good morning, and Good Coffee to you. Welcome to the 70th edition of Morning brew. Now on with it…
The Broken Army:
You may have heard that our Army is broken, or is at least being broken, by the two-front war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But how true is this? We know that our politicians, from both sides of the political spectrum, are keen on crying wolf, and our media is keen on echoing their sentiments. Democrats WANT the Army to be broken, or at least perceived to be broken, because it proves that Bush’s policies are failed, and in turn, he’s responsible. Furthermore, if they can pin on Bush the breaking of the US Army, they can undermine an area that is generally seen as a Republican bulwark. All this, while interesting, is not really germane to the question, and the answer to that question is, “Yes, our Army is being broken.”
The Boston Globe yesterday reported that the Army’s October recruiting goal had been met. October is the first month of a five-year plan to add 65,000 new soldiers, which the Army claims it can do two years early by “beefing up recruiting efforts” and offering prodigious bonuses to reenlistees. Sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? Meeting goals and offering bonuses.
Not so. According to the Globe, at least 1 in 5 recruits required a waiver to enlist, be it physical fitness waivers to “moral character waivers.” The numbers are astounding: physical deficiency waivers have increased from 4.1% in 2003 to 8.6%, criminal waivers (for anything less than homicide, rape, and drug trafficking) have increased from 4.6% to 11.2% in the same time frame. In fact, 12.3% of the 6,400 enlistees signed in October required waivers for criminal activity. Over twelve percent! Can you imagine fully 20% of our Army being either physically inferior to their peers or morally repugnant? Bring out your arsonists, burglars, aggravated assaulters, fat bodies…we’ll take ‘em. And get this, you can test positive for marijuana twice and cocaine once...wait for it…during the recruiting process, and still sign up. Not in the past, but during the actual process to enlist in the US Army. Unbelievable, isn’t it? I guess that’s what happens when you have an unpopular war and an erosion of civic virtue. Do we really want people as morally bankrupt as arsonist defending our nation? Do we want people physically incapable of carrying a radio doing the same? Do we want to serve with those types of people? My guess would be no. But numbers is what counts here, not quality.
A lot of people would like to see the draft implemented in order to solve this problem. Many of these people also have a hidden agenda: they want the burden shouldered by everyone equally. Generally, they say things like, “Jenna Bush should have the same chance of serving as X.” Whatever. Not the point. These morons actually think that if Jenna Bush or Senator Schmuckateli’s son was in uniform, George wouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq and Congress wouldn’t have authorized the war. That’s purely absurd. Do they really think that those types of people would serve in line companies? No. They’d be in some rear-echelon unit serving fake eggs, no matter how badly they might want to actually fight (see Prince Harry, for example). The death or capture of Jenna Bush or Jon Schmuckateli would be a huge propaganda coup for our opposition. Thus, that portion of their argument is stupid. You might say, “Well, they have something there, what with the numbers and all.” True. True they do, if numbers is all that matters (see quote at end and uncountable historical examples to the contrary). But you’d still have plenty of waivers, this time they’d be waivers to get out of service. And would the quality of draftees be better than those who volunteer? Probably not. For how long are they pressed into service? These questions are moot; conscription is not viable unless we’re being invaded by aliens or the Chinese. I would rather have 20 highly-motivated volunteers and/or veterans (more than one term of enlistment) than 100 maybe-motivated conscripts who are trying to get by while serving their two years and then getting out.
I have two ideas (plus one) that might work to solve our manpower issues; use them individually or together. Neither will ever be placed into effect because they’re too radical and controversial, and we all know what sort of leadership we get when you try to implement radical, controversial changes (unfortunately, we’ll never see a Gracchus or a Marius, that’s for sure).
1.) For those who like the draft, I call this, the “back-door draft” (I await your laughter). You don’t draft anyone, but you make all federal aid (like student loans) contingent on having served in the military (or civil service) in some capacity for a minimum of two years. On top of that, you offer the GI Bill and college funds for those who serve. Since you can’t get a job serving hamburgers anymore without a degree, this should help a little. Sure, there are holes in this (what about the disabled and the rich), but I have answers to most of them, and if I don’t, well, they don’t pay me for this anyway. I’m not getting into it all here.
2.) All members of the active duty force are tax exempt. You heard me: Tax exempt. State, local, federal. I’m not talking about sales tax though. If you were to do this, I think you’d have to TURN AWAY potential recruits. The quality issue would be also be moot, because you could select who you wanted. Reservists would not be exempt unless they were activated, at which time they too would be exempt from taxes. Sure, there are also some wrinkles to be ironed out of this plan as well.
3.) Glorify military service. I know the liberals will hate, certifiably HATE this one. Okay, everyone knows that military members are heroes, and that we all support them, yadda, yadda. It’s bad to not do so (or is it simply political suicide?). But what we do is pay mere lip service. Celebrate real heroes (like the guys that earn Medals of Honor, not Jimmy who sat in an air conditioned building for four years), read citations in schools, that sort of thing. Celebrate the honor of military service. Encourage businesses to give 10% discounts to military members and veterans. For Romans (and many other groups), serving the state was an honor; fighting was an honor. You couldn’t even secure public office without having served, and many an office was won because of the placement of battle scars (on your back meant you fled, on your front meant you faced your enemy). Warriors were looked upon favorably. People wanted to serve and fight. When those virtues were abandoned, so too was Rome. I’m not saying we go as far as my Roman friends, but we seem to lack even an ounce of those characteristics. The teaching of American glory is frowned upon in our schools, and woe to the teacher who reads a Medal of Honor citation to 5th graders.
Obviously, finding a perfect answer is difficult, but surely, there has to be solutions more creative than simply lowering standards. In a perfect world, everyone would want to serve his or her country, but that’s not the case. The world stopped being perfect about 4.5 billion years ago (plus or minus a few billion). The prosecution rests.
Word of the Day: Incongruous (adj): 1. lacking in harmony, compatibility, or appropriateness; 2. inconsistent with reason, logic, or common sense. Sort of like lowering the standards for our Army.
On This Day in History: Magellan’s ships reach the Pacific Ocean, becoming the first Europeans to do so (1520). Also, the first American automobile race takes place in Illinois – 54 miles in 10 hours (1895). 28 November is a slow day…
---------
"Men are seldom born brave but they acquire courage through training and discipline - a handful of men inured to war proceed to certain victory; while on the contrary numerous armies of raw and undisciplined troops are but multitudes of men dragged to the slaughter."
“The courage of a soldier is heightened by the knowledge of his profession.”
Both quotes – Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus’ Epitoma Rei Militaris, written in the mid-300s as a plea for reform in the Roman army. We need a Vegetius.
No comments:
Post a Comment