An excellent piece appears over at OpinionJournal that explains that a draft would water down the military -- and do very little to "spread the burden" of military service from the lower classes to more affluent members of our society.

In this mythology, the military is overly reliant on uneducated dupes from poor communities because those from more affluent backgrounds don't want to serve. But the truth is closer to the opposite, according to a recent Heritage Foundation report on the demographic characteristics of the military. It's titled "Who Are the Recruits?" and Mr. Rangel, a Korean War veteran, might want to read it before implying that the military doesn't look like America.

According to the report, which analyzed the most recent Pentagon enlistee data, "the only group that is lowering its participation in the military is the poor. The percentage of recruits from the poorest American neighborhoods (with one-fifth of the U.S. population) declined from 18 percent in 1999 to 14.6 percent in 2003, 14.1 percent in 2004, and 13.7 percent in 2005." Put another way, if military burdens aren't spread more evenly among socio-economic groups in the U.S., it's because the poor are underrepresented.

Or consider education levels. In the general U.S. population, the high school graduation rate is a little under 80%. But among military recruits from 2003-2005, nearly 97% had high school diplomas. The academic quality of recruits has also been rising this decade. According to Heritage, the military defines a "high quality" recruit as someone who scores above the 50th percentile on the Armed Forces Qualifying Test and has a high school degree. The percentage of high quality recruits had climbed to 67% in 2004 and 64% in 2005, up from 57% in 2001.

And what about race? In 2004, about 76% of the U.S. population was white, which was only slightly above the 73% of military recruits (and 72% of Army recruits) who were white. Blacks made up 12.17% of the population in 2004, and made up 14.54% of recruits in 2004 and 13% in 2005. Hispanic Americans are also slightly overrepresented in the military compared to their share of the population, but also not to a degree that suggests some worrisome cultural chasm among the races.

The overall truth is that today's recruits come primarily from the middle class, and, more importantly, they come willingly.

And, of course, there is the more key issue -- the nature of those who would be drafted and the impact of the draft on military resources.

An Army of draftees would so expand the number of recruits that training resources would inevitably be stretched and standards watered down. Meanwhile, scarce resources would be devoted to tens of thousands of temporary soldiers who planned to leave as soon as their year or two of forced service was up.

It's true that such training would help to shape up more young Americans who could use a few weeks of Marine discipline at Parris Island, and if this is what Mr. Rangel has in mind he should say so. But the price would be a less effective fighting force, and precisely at a time when experience and technological mastery are more important than ever in a fighting force.

"The military doesn't want a draft," says Tim Kane, an Air Force veteran and author of the Heritage study. "What the military wants is the most effective fighting force they can field. They want to win wars and minimize casualties. And you don't do that when you're forced to take less-educated, unmotivated people."

But then again, a buffoon like Charlie Rangel really wants a less-educated, less motivated, less-effective military force, so that the US will be perpetually under-prepared for military action. That way the military won't be used aggressively to fight for freedom around the world -- but that also means that in time of crisis we will be less able to defend this nation from attacks from abroad (you do remember 9/11, Charlie, don't you -- I hear it happened near your district).

Personally, I oppose a draft for a different reason. My father spent over a quarter century in the US Navy. The last part of it was in positions overseeing basic training and the more advanced service schools . Based upon my conversations with him and with officers and senior enlisted personnel at the time that Jimmy Carter re-instituted draft registration, I learned of the benefits of an all-volunteer military -- and that military professionals do not want draftees, barring a conflagration of the scale of WWII. Unless Congressman Rangel and other supporters of a draft envision widening the Crusade Against Jihadi Terror to wipe that scourge from the face of the planet for the benefit of all humanity (as was done with Nazism), there is no military need for a draft.

Posted by: Greg at 01:44 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 811 words, total size 5 kb.