Good has a neat graphic looking at enlistment rates in various wars. It seems that whereas 12.2 percent of the population served in World War II, and 4.3 percent of the population served in Vietnam, just 0.5 percent of Americans have served in our current conflicts. Of course if John "100 Years" McCain gets his way, that may wind up going up.
« Good News for People Who Like Bad Predictions | Main | The Race and the Media »
How Many Serve?
03 Mar 2008 02:09 pm
Comments (34)
Of course if John "100 Years" McCain gets his way, that may wind up going up.
It would require a draft for enrollment (not enlistment) to get to the numbers of Vietnam and WWII. The only person suggesting a draft is Charlie "Taxpayers should be paying to name buildings after yours-truly" Rangel.
"Of course if John "100 Years" McCain gets his way, that may wind up going up."
Why would that be? McCain clearly was describing a decades-long deployment in Iraq similar to the ones in Japan and South Korea. Those deployments require far fewer troops than the Iraq war does, so, if anything, a transition to that sort of mission would require significantly fewer troops, not more.
Part of this was the Cold War was a systems war where spending went to material, not men. In fighting counterinsurgency and terrorism you need more people, fewer toys. I'm for adding a million new service members, one brigade per Congressional District, and taking the equivalent money from systems like space weapons, the F-22 and the B-2. The US is stronger on procurment than we are on defense and that has to end. Cutting defense spending is hard so a shift to more productive purposes like National Guard units which can serve useful domestic roles is desirable.
Call it a green jobs program -- Army green.
query: "Any thoughts on mandatory military/national service?"
I'm all for it. Let's say a 2-year commitment after high school or college graduation in any number of different community service/national service/military plans. Obviously most people would opt for non-military service, but it would still help our military recruitment as well.
McCain clearly was describing a decades-long deployment in Iraq similar to the ones in Japan and South Korea.
No. It's been spun that way, but "clearly" is not accurate.
Matthew,
These are not "enlistment" numbers, but "enrollment" numbers. That means that it includes draftees.
I would add that those who currently dismiss the draft as a tool to fill the ranks--usually in order to assuage fears that the current wars won't and shouldn't require any sacrifice--leave out that roughly 60 percent of those who served in WWII were draftees. If it was good enough for the Greatest Generation...
Jeffrey Davis,
"No. It's been spun that way, but "clearly" is not accurate."
Set aside your talking points for 37 seconds and listen to the quote.
Matthew,
Of course if John "100 Years" McCain gets his way, that may wind up going up.
Or not, given that we've had a military presence in Japan, Germany and Korea, to mention three examples, for over half a century.
Jeffrey Davis,
No. It's been spun that way, but "clearly" is not accurate.
Er, you're the one who's spinning. McCain explicitly cited Japan and Korea as examples of what he was talking about.
Jeffrey Davis,
No. It's been spun that way, but "clearly" is not accurate.
Er, you're the one who's spinning. McCain explicitly cited Japan and Korea as examples of what he was talking about.
McCain "clarified" his remarks. The original 100 Years War quote got him into trouble. There was nothing in the original that suggested anything other than a long, long war. And there's nothing in his other public statements about the military that suggests that his spin is anything he believes deeply.
I'm all for it. Let's say a 2-year commitment after high school or college graduation in any number of different community service/national service/military plans. Obviously most people would opt for non-military service, but it would still help our military recruitment as well.
What the hell for? I'm glad you're not the one making decisions. I'd rather pay my taxes than do community service, thank you very much. And I'm pretty sure the country can fulfill it's security needs w/o a draft...
Or not, given that we've had a military presence in Japan, Germany and Korea, to mention three examples, for over half a century.
Jesus, the dishonesty. One more time, guys-- there has never been an insurgency in Japan, Germany or Korea. The situations are not comparable, at all. Of course, you know that already.
This is a fantastic thing, by the way, that military service rates are down.
Also, national service is disasterous from an economic standpoint. Real good way to redirect people from their economically efficient uses. Not to mention the objections from the liberal standpoint of telling people how to live their lives.
Jeffery Davis,
McCain "clarified" his remarks. The original 100 Years War quote got him into trouble.
You don't know what you're talking about. McCain made the comparison to our military presence in Korea and Japan in the original quote.
Actually, in a McCain presidency, the troop levels in Iraq might not go up so much.
The problem is that we'd need many, many more boys to send to Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba . . . .
Freddie,
Jesus, the dishonesty. One more time, guys-- there has never been an insurgency in Japan, Germany or Korea.
Jesus, the irrelevance. No one said there has been an insurgency in Japan, Germany or Korea. If you have an actual argument to make, then make it.
Didn't McCain say he was assuming the insurgency would continue for a long, long, time? So the comparison to Japan, Germany, and Korea wouldn't be very relevant, would it? And his assumption that we could have our troops there during that insurgency, but none of them would die, looks like wishful thinking.
If you have an actual argument to make, then make it.
Ok, here's an argument: anybody who doesn't see the fundamental difference between SK, Japan, Germany and Iraq, anybody who uses the former three to make a point about the latter - any such person is an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Yeah, Matt, he may bring the draft in.
And he'd send pudgy little cowards like you out there.
No wonder you're so against him. Declare your interest!
Hey! The jerks left off the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War! Talk about not respecting the troops!
BTW, Obama and Clinton want to increase the size of the military also - by about 90,000 (McCain wants to increase it by 150,000). So to the extent that there is still a war on under Obama and Hillary, the enrollment ratio may go up under them too.
Yeah, Matt, he may bring the draft in.
And he'd send pudgy little cowards like you out there.
No wonder you're so against him. Declare your interest!
What is up with the schoolyard name-calling? I'm in damn fine physical condition and yet, what do you know, I have no desire to waste my time and risk my life in Iraq. Not wanting to sacrifice your personal time and health to satisfy a crazy old man's sick fantasies is a perfectly reasonable justification for opposing a McCain presidency.
You don't know what you're talking about. McCain made the comparison to our military presence in Korea and Japan in the original quote.
Original? The previous November he'd rejected a Korea-style involvement.
So Wilson, is mandatory military service the reason for economic stagnation in Germany, Sweden, Singapore,Taiwan, Korean, Turkey, and Israel?
mpowell
Mandatory service spreads the burden and hardship of war throughout the entire society. I would argue it makes elective war less likely. Do you not find it problematic that the poor and minority members of the country bear more of the responsibility and associated costs of military action?
A person is 35 percent more likely to be in the military if they are black than if they are white.
A person is 3.5 times more likely to be in the military if they are from a poor or lower middle class neighborhood than if they are from an affluent neighborhood.
It's fine to chat about spreading "the burden and hardship", but what about the effectiveness of our military in its intended purpose? Volunteers make better servicemembers because they by definition WANT to be there. Dudes who are disgruntled because they got drafted, not so much.
"Volunteers make better service members because they by definition WANT to be there. Dudes who are disgruntled because they got drafted, not so much."
Most guys I served with in the US Army were there because they came from a disadvantaged background and wanted to better themselves. The idea that most join because they want war is nuts...absolutely nuts.
Army troops serve because they come from a certain working class demographic, to say that they volunteered to become a member of that demographic is self serving swill by elites determined not to put there shoulder to the wheel.
The entire discussion is brain dead because we don't need a larger military AT ALL - let alone a draft. "National service" is bullshit for "coerce people into doing what we want them to do at taxpayer expense which are undoubtedly boondoggles of some sort." "National service" is one step short of the Hitler Youth Movement. Shove that crap.
We could cut the military in half and still be able to defeat any adversary in the foreseeable future - provided of course that we weren't trying to be occupiers in a country that HATES OUR GUTS!
And I see the morons like Mixner are still babbling about McCain's crap about "100 years" being only twice that of Korea without mentioning that Korea has no insurgency but has 37,000 troops intended to be SACRIFICED in the immediate 48 hours of a war in order to bring the US into the war.
Right - that will motivate a lot of people to join up.
Not to mention that the problem with Iraq is that no US soldier will be able to walk around there for the next two generations of Iraqis without getting shot, so comparing it to Korea is simply stupid.
Nitwits.
Go back to arguing for torture, Mixner, you're useless at anything else - in fact, you're useless at that, too.
national service is disasterous from an economic standpoint. Real good way to redirect people from their economically efficient uses. Not to mention the objections from the liberal standpoint of telling people how to live their lives.
Posted by Wilson
Your economic theory breaks down in that the military trains people to take higher value jobs when they get out - and more efficiently and economically from a government outlay given value returned from service - than sponsoring 4 year of college with no work expected in return.
The "economically efficient use" of a young man with high potential is not to be a clerk at ChinaMart from age 18-28, it is to get that kid and give him lifetime job skills in the military while meeting America's security staffing needs in the bargain.
The US telecomm, security, law enforcement, nuclear power, aviation industry, ultilities, health care, aerospace and defense industries plus management positions in many other industries are dominated or over-represented by Vets & Reservists from the military. The US military is over-represented in executive America.
Growth of the American economy post WWII tracked higher-performing, more skilled and reliable than civilian, members of the Armed Services joining the workforce.
All areas America maintains global competiveness in. As opposed to almost 100% always civilian public school teachers, "womyns" studies academics, and parasitical lawyers.
Economists have concluded the value was not in them "going to college" but in the skills, teamwork, leadership training, and behaviors they gained while in military service allowing them to excel more than their civilian counterparts in college and in the workforce.
And not just the USA. The best Germans, Swiss, Israelis, Koreans I worked with were Veterans of their obligatory 2-4 year national service. The Koreans credit 3-4 generations getting a range of skills in the military then coming home no longer a peasant but a disciplined, skilled, reliable worker - with why Korea became a spectacular economic success.
****************
Let's say a 2-year commitment after high school or college graduation in any number of different community service/national service/military plans. Obviously most people would opt for non-military service, but it would still help our military recruitment as well.
Posted by Korha
Sorry, but national service would have the highest priority, and the military have its needs staffed first - then you can talk about fitting the leftovers into coaching autistic kids basketball against "at-risk" kids, mopping hospital floors, picking up after dysfunctional welfare mammies, and going off like little environmental zealots to "educate people" door-to-door to quit using "earth-destroying" incandescent lightbulbs.
And that would involve giving risk-reward-hardship pay premiums those who choose to enter military service, those in some grotty unskilled jobs like cleaning up Alzheimers patients - while the rest would have cushier safer jobs but get less pay and skill out of them.
You'd probably have to test to bin people into what jobs they would do best then have incentives and disincentives to lead people "voluntarily" into taking the needed national service jobs.
But again, no national service job, no matter how much it "helped" or "nurtured" some group in need of "caregiving" would approach the priority of getting the best into the military...
No one said there has been an insurgency in Japan, Germany or Korea. If you have an actual argument to make, then make it.
LOL. Is our favorite silly glibertarian fanboi going to explain how we get from Iraq 2008 to South Korea 2008?
Wow. Twice as many people in our prisons as fighting our wars.
A person is 35 percent more likely to be in the military if they are black than if they are white.
Citation please.
Korea's a perfectly fine analogy. Like Iraq, we fought there in the first place with a UN mandate against an aggressive dictatorship, got embroiled in a civil war, and stayed for decades to support the development of a stable, democratic ally.
Their are differences, of course. Korea was officially of no strategic value (per Eisenhower's JCS in 1949), while Iraq has been officially designated an area of vital national interest since Carter, and is situated on the fulcrum of the world economy. It's the key to the region producing most of the oil and most of the terrorism.
And then there are costs. We spent about 19% of GDP in order to get a tie in Korea, killing perhaps two million people in the process, about 40,000 of them GI's. We're spending about 4.5% of GDP in Iraq. The latest and best casualty figures from the UN/WHO indicate around 210,000 Iraqi killed since 2003 (most of them by other Iraqis), and we've lost nearly 4,000 GI's--about ten percent of Korea's fatal casualties for those having trouble with arithmetic.
People who imagine Iraq to be the worst military disaster since Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, and that our best option is a self-inflicted defeat, are misguided. We don't need a draft, we need a better-informed public.
Powell continues to lie about the Iraqi civilian casualty count, and ignored the displacement of four million Iraqis.
Nearly twenty percent of Iraq's population dead or displaced and he thinks everything is just fine.
Truly a scumbag.
It's tough to get good numbers, but the best study by far in terms of peer-reviewed methodology was recently released by the UN/WHO. That's the source of my numbers.
It's a lot more credible than the propaganda from anti-American websites spewed by The Amazing Hack to go along with his Nostradamus-like pronouncements based on intuiting the inner thoughts of world leaders. You're better off playing drop the soap with your "pen" pals, Dickie.
Comments closed March 17, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
MY and everyone else
Any thoughts on mandatory military/national service?
Posted by query | March 3, 2008 2:20 PM