Quagmires and Wacky Personnel Policies Are Straining the All-Volunteer Military
by Ivan Eland | View comments |
Print This Post
In fiscal year 2007, nearly one in five Army recruits were brought in under waivers for felonies and misdemeanors.
Enmeshed in two military occupations that have turned into well-publicized quagmires, the Army and Marines are understandably having trouble enlisting new recruits. Their answer: vastly increase the number of convicted felons and other societal miscreants accepted into their ranks.
According to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, from 2006 to 2007 the Army more than doubled its felonious recruits and the Marine Corps increased its share by more than two-thirds. For example, some entrants had convictions for crimes of dishonesty — including burglary, robbery, and grand larceny — crimes of violence — such as aggravated assault, arson, and “terroristic” threats, including bomb threats — and sex crimes, such as rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, molestation, and indecent acts with a child. In addition, the two services dramatically increased their “conduct waivers” for people convicted of misdemeanors. Astonishingly, in fiscal year 2007, nearly one in five Army recruits were brought in under waivers for felonies and misdemeanors.
The never-ending wars have also forced the Army to take larger numbers of recruits who are older and less physically fit, have lower education and aptitude, and have formerly disqualifying medical maladies. Also, recently President Bush reduced the length of combat tours in Iraq from fifteen months to twelve.
Although this latter measure may help somewhat with military recruiting and retention and gives soldiers a much-needed break from the stress of combat, it is detrimental to winning a war against guerrillas. In such counterinsurgency warfare, it is crucially important to win the hearts and minds of the indigenous people. To do this, personal relations must be maintained with the local leaders and warlords. Rotating people out of Iraq so quickly may boost morale and recruiting, but it destroys such relationships. The same happened with short tours in Vietnam.
One problem is that when the U.S. is not fighting a war against what the American public perceives as a dire threat (for example, the Nazis and Imperial Japanese during World War II) — that is, the war is one of choice, such as Iraq or Vietnam — the nation is unwilling to make the sacrifices needed to win. In World War II, serving more than twelve months overseas was not an issue.
Another problem is that recruiting societal miscreants might especially impair counterinsurgency warfare. Especially violent people, or those who don’t properly control their behavior, might be adequate for all-out combat against a conventional enemy, but would not be good at winning hearts and minds. In fact, when faced with guerrillas who attack and then melt back into the general population, these recruits might be more apt to commit atrocities against the population.
Finally, the military would rather have such miscreants — some of them violent criminals or felons who have committed sex-related crimes (as long as they are heterosexual offenses) — in its ranks than it would gays. The fact that openly gay people are still being kicked out of the military does not create an enticing climate for gays to join, at a time when the armed forces need every qualified person they can get. Similarly, excluding women from serving on submarines (because of the allegedly cramped quarters) and certain combat positions (because they are presumably too frail) deters some athletic and qualified women from enlisting in the ground and naval forces.
The obvious solutions to all of these problems are to avoid unnecessary brushfire wars and to change wacky military personnel policies that undermine the all-volunteer military.
ieland@independent.org
http://www.independent.org
Read more articles by Ivan Eland
I always knew you were a "Bush lied, people died" sloganeering pseudo-liberal in regards to the quagmires, war crimes, atrocities, genocide, or wars, depending on the article - but I've never heard you expand on your normal platitudes long enough to know you towed the leftist line on these other issues as well.
The ironic thing is that our military engagements wouldn't be as long or burdensome if it weren't for those like yourself who believe simultaneously that we should fight wars like Protestant missionaries, and also that they should be over within a week or two.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | May 6, 2008
Patrick,
I don’t so much mind liberals moralizing and criticizing, the way Eland does; in fact I relish answering his incessant nay-saying. However, and like you, I do wish he’d cut the pretense he’s a) an independent above petty politicking, and/or b) a non-liberal. Eland dances lightly around the conservative bashing, and for that I credit him a modicum of civility. But, neither does he admit to some fairly anti-conservative opinions. It is a little harder determining just how ‘libertarian’ he is or isn’t, because he never really discusses libertarian principles other than as a means to scold. He is clearly a pacifist, but that does not necessarily disqualify him as either a libertarian or conservative, though it does make the latter less likely. Eland comes to us from the Independent Institute, which does have some fair-&-balanced writers; but Eland doesn’t really fit that description. I suppose he’s one of those who fancy he takes no sides, only principles. Yet standing on principles that really aren’t at risk is hardly taking a stand. Declare yourself, Eland, and stand by your principles, else admit to no principle and no spine.
Now let’s look at what he says, much of which is hogwash (or, as the liberals prefer to say – wrong on so many ‘levels’). Eland’s main thrust is that enlisting men and women with a checkered past is both bad policy and seriously hampering our effort, but his subtext is our effort is, itself, a serious mistake. So, what does it matter how well our military is constituted or conducts itself if it is not directed at anything worthwhile? That would reduce Eland’s concern to: our military personnel aren’t sufficiently PC. Eland anticipates criticism of his argument with the ‘hearts and minds’ nonsense. ‘Hearts and minds’, while a sometimes applicable strategy, is not an end in itself – just one of several context dependent approaches to war.
So, for our occupation policy to be effective, Eland asserts it must:
a) attract sufficient recruits to keep up manpower levels well above an unspecified minimum sufficient to suppress insurgency; yet
b) reject from service anyone with a police-record, high-school misbehavior, drug use, sexual misconduct (proved or alleged), shoplifting, fist-fights, drunken brawls, too old, too young, minor medical condition, inconsistency, incapable of sustained service, lacking high-school diploma, functionally-illiterate, unskilled, work-challenged, diversity-challenged, uncomfortable sleeping and taking showers next to someone of the same sex potentially with the ‘hots’, or any guy incapable of totally suppressing both his sexual and protective urges while bunking next to a normal, healthy and attractive (if somewhat muscular) female
c) must have the unqualified support of a super-majority of voters (must stop in mid-engagement if support erodes)
d) must have the support of the media (as shaped by the intelligencia – i.e., universities and elitist think-clubs like the Independence Institute)
e) not upset the occupied population (aka, hearts & minds)
f) avoid any conflict unless or until it gets so out of control we are forced to slug it out against an enemy capable of annihilating us rather than nipping it in the bud when it can be done easily and with a minimum of suffering
g) cost next to nothing and be quickly done and forgotten so we can return to important matters (like building our retirement portfolios)
Okay, Eland didn’t really say that last bit, but it does strike me he regards the war a distraction from something more important. I just can’t figure what that might be!
(cont.)
Comment by Bob Stapler | May 7, 2008
(cont.)
In answer to Eland’s objection against ‘jailhouse recruits’, I submit the following article (http://www.army.com/blog/item/3695). By jailhouse recruits I do not mean individuals recruited directly from jail. It is an outmoded term, but the only one we have for describing recruits with a past. This article admits the Army has relaxed its requirements to the extent a tiny few are given waivers. However, the study also shows they are no less carefully screened to eliminate those incapable of military conformity; and, although the washout and disciplinary rates for this group are a little higher than among ‘ordinary’ recruits, the re-enlistment rate, commitment to objectives, self-discipline, and tolerance to military life is significantly higher among those with priors also. Many of these recruits are young people who get off on the wrong foot and find doors (understandably) closed to them. For these, acceptance by the military is a godsend for which many are appropriately grateful and mindful; and, if anything, are less willing to repeat the kind of mistakes that got them shutout in civilian life. They may still be a rough and surly crowd, but they do make good soldiers.
Jailhouse recruits are, generally, no less intelligent than other enlistees in combat; all of whom are taught, in no uncertain terms, if they disobey orders resulting in atrocities, they will be severely punished under UCMJ. Because of this and as a group, they are slightly less likely to “commit atrocities” in combat situations than those without priors. In fact, in all our wars, there has never been anything like a correlation between atrocities and jailhouse recruitment; a notion best suited to Hollywood scripts.
This policy recognizes a lesson that political-correctness has caused us to forget – that some of our most talented warriors (including heroes) are precisely those mavericks who, given to breaking or bending rules, find an environment suited to their temperament in military service. They are the ones who, in peace, sometimes have difficulty adapting, but, nonetheless, represent those few with the grit it takes to fight wars. Does this mean they are murderous lunatics unleashed? No. On their own they get in trouble, but under the discipline and confidence our military instills, they either learn to prize honor or are discharged as unusable. In war and peacekeeping, they find balance. In both war and peace (under supervision) they provide the security without which anarchy reigns. These aren’t psychopaths, as Eland would have it; they are utilizable young men and women. I suppose, instead of putting these people to good purpose, Eland would rather they continue as dead-end misfits getting by on the dole.
Another thing Eland’s analysis total misses (or ignores) is very few who serve in the military are actually put in combat situations. Anyone who has served (and I suspect Eland has not from things he says) can tell you we are quickly sorted for various missions the military needs carried out, weeded of those who cannot or will not adapt, and trained suitable to our talents. Someone with mechanical aptitude will wind up in a motor pool, someone with leadership qualities may be offered OCS, those with poor attitudes and little aptitude will get shunted where they are most useful and harmless, and the aggressive yet disciplined individual will generally see combat. The military even finds places for cowards if they can pull their weight. So, if there is any remaining concern regarding a jailhouse recruit’s suitability for ‘peace-keeping’ duty, he will be utilized, instead, to fill one of these REMF jobs freeing up someone more suitable to war-fighting.
Every one of us starts out young, and every young person makes mistakes. Most of us learn from such mistakes and vow to do better, and some need the kind of discipline only the military can provide. Some of us are born warriors, some cowards, though most are neither. Mr. Eland would have only those least suited to serve as war-fighters, yet I, somehow, doubt he’d have the stomach for it. Well, I am no fighter either (I did serve in the Navy during Vietnam), but I am thankful some are; and, if they have a tarnished past because of it, will take some bad along with the good.
Comment by Bob Stapler | May 7, 2008
Wait - if 'REMF jobs' are available even to the untalented or cowardly, why can't those jobs be opened to 'unqualified' types like homosexuals and women, freeing up more 'combat-suited' types? Oh, wait, actually, that's what women are used for.
I've not seen a good reason for not using homosexuals in at least such a capacity. After all, that's mostly what 'Negro' soldiers were used for before WWII… and then the military was forced to accept them in combat roles, in the middle of a war, and well, we got the Tuskegee Airmen. Taking showers next to someone of a different race used to make people 'uncomfortable', too.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 8, 2008
“Ivan Eland is a Senior Fellow at The Independent Institute, Director of the Institute’s Center on Peace & Liberty, and author of the books The Empire Has No Clothes, and Putting Defense’ Back into U.S. Defense Policy.” . . . and not a day’s experience in the military.
Comment by sedonaman | May 9, 2008
Raymond,
I don’t know if you’ve ever served in the military, I can only relate my own experience in these matters. When I served at the tail end of Vietnam, the military was already well integrated with respect to race. Calls for women-in-the-military were just beginning to get attention. The military strenuously resisted racial integration, so you might think it would have felt the same resistance regarding women; but you’d be wrong. Most of the resistance came from outside the military. There were internal debates and there were incidents, to be sure; and the MSM did its utmost to use those to smear the military as ‘misogynistic’. Yet, if there was misogyny, it was not coming from the top down so much as bottom up and from outside. The orders from the top were ‘get it done’.
Your point is not completely out of line, but you are ignoring one important aspect. You are right that there are a few women who can and desire jobs we normally associate with men and are physically demanding. Heck, I’ve met some women who could throw me to the floor and slit my throat before I knew what’s up. But, it is not true as a general rule, and the exaggeration of it misrepresents. Race and gender issues are not exactly the same as integrating homosexuals, at least not in military life. I’m sorry but showering next to a black man who shares the same ‘hands-off’ attitude I have is not the same as showering next to some guy who thinks I’m cute and may be plotting to ‘loosen me up’. Knowing the guy next to you has a sexual attitude strongly at variance to your own creates a distrust neither can get past and neither can afford.
Race is purely a matter of bias, and, once we got past that, had little race trauma inside the military. In fact, relations inside the military improved noticeably faster and better than they did outside. Women-in-the-military still has some problems, but nothing insurmountable and nothing causing persistent friction and systemic morale issues. Women can demand separate quarters and facilities, and no one is going to object. Women can do many of the same jobs, including some high-risk jobs. Rules and boundaries have had to be set, and that continues to evolve. It has been less of a problem than we thought, yet more than the radical-feminists hyped.
The same cannot be said of homosexuals in the military. Unlike race, neither gender nor homosexuality are strictly matters of bias. These differences are not merely ‘skin deep’, they are differences of kind and of boundaries. Homosexuality is further complicated by the number of variations multiplying the number of boundary issues that have to be worked out if it can be made to work at all. Because of this, people in the military, from 5-star general to raw recruit are justifiably concerned that it will work out. No one in civilian life works as hard or commits as much as do military personnel to making these things work, things imposed on them by others with little understanding of what is involved; and doing all this while trying to stay alive and keeping each other alive (including those put there to make political statements).
Combat is not the only situation in the military where this friction matters. There are times in the air or aboard ship when every member of the crew must play his part or all will die. I experienced a little of that on two occasions; once when our steering went out in rough seas and once fighting a shipboard fire. If anyone does not do his job or impairs or distracts others from doing their job, you die. Our galley discussions turned to what might have happened in these situations if they brought women into the Navy as was then being demanded. We had serious doubts about it. I believe this doubt persists even today, but is no worse than worrying some hopeless newbie won’t measure up. So, even though I was just a crummy REMF, I did not get through my Navy time without learning how important friction is or how it can affect survival.
It is easy for us to blithely prescribe how the military ought to behave, but we are not the ones who then have to survive the fallout. In civilian life, we deal with friction individually and make personal changes that insulate us from friction and make us less obnoxious to others. You don’t have that option in the military, you have to work together and you have to make it work – there are no other options; so the fewer frictions you pile on the better. Now, that sounds pretty simple so it shouldn’t be that big of a deal, but, until the guy or gal next to you is friction-proofed and battle-tested, your life and the life of your shipmates are, literally, in their hands. You can’t help but think about that on the ground, in the air, or within the tight confines of a ship at sea; knowing that, on any given day, you can be sent into combat or deadly situations – even us REMFs.
That said, I am proud of all our military, especially those in harms way keeping us safe, be they male, female, or whatever. I pray that it does work out and that they ‘all’ come safely home.
Comment by Bob Stapler | May 11, 2008
Mr. Stapler - Friction can, indeed, affect survival. What I don't understand is why homosexuality simply must cause such friction. You state that "showering next to a black man who shares the same ‘hands-off’ attitude I have is not the same as showering next to some guy who thinks I’m cute and may be plotting to ‘loosen me up’."
The thing is, it's not the same now, but back in the 1940s, when integration was mandated, it sure as heck was. 'Colored' troops were argued to be incompetent, undisciplined, and thieving. Just plain untrustworthy. Besides, they were physically repellent. (" It is widely perceived today that the racial integration of the Armed Forces was a fairly simple, straightforward matter, in comparison with the numerous complexities involved in integrating homosexuals. In reality, racial integration during the 1940s and 1950s was a long, convoluted process which inspired many of the strong emotional reactions that the possibility of integrating homosexuals provokes today. Many white Americans (especially Southerners) responded with visceral revulsion to the idea of close physical contact with blacks. Many also perceived racial integration as a profound affront to their sense of social order." 1993 RAND report on this matter, page 160.
Look, I'm not gay. I don't understand why most women are attracted to men. But I can't understand why anyone would care if some guy was 'checking them out' like that. It's like the automatic assumption is that they will be uncontrolled sexual predators. Seriously, a whole lot of what's called 'homophobia' sure as hell isn't 'homophobia', but that qualifies if anything does.
Of course, there's a wrong way to make advances, and not accepting a polite refusal is a problem no matter who's hitting on whom, but I don't see any evidence that that's more of a problem with gays. (I'm not looking for anecdotes - the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. Studies, please.)
Racist idiots 'got over it' in the 1940's and 1950's, during a war. I think homophobic idiots can 'get over it' now - and reports like the one I linked to above agree with me. If someone could point me to objective reasons why gays themselves would be incapable of performing their duties, I'd be all for keeping them away from situations where incompetence is a life-threatening problem. But if the reason to keep them out is because someone else can't do their job if gays are around - then that someone else is the incompetent one.
I think our military is, overall, much more sensible and level-headed than that. Certainly the two Marines I know care a lot more about how well their comrades can shoot than who they want to spend their off-hours with.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 12, 2008
Mr. Ingles:
You haven’t been around gays much nor spent any time in the military, have you? Well I have. You might start by reading “The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement” by Ronald G. Lee, an ex-gay, available here http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3650 . Quote: “Ralph McInerny once offered a brilliant definition of the gay rights movement: self-deception as a group effort. Nevertheless, deception of the general public is also vital to the success of the cause.”
Their deception began in the late ‘60s when they told everyone that all that gays wanted was to be left alone. Yeah, right. That’s why we don’t have them demanding special civil rights; that’s why we don’t have them demanding gay “marriage”; that’s why we don’t have them forcing acceptance of homosexuality by school children too young to understand; that’s why we don’t have them living next to you and banging on your door at 3 am; that’s why we don’t have organizations like NAMBLA teaching its members how to sexually molest boys and murder them to avoid getting caught.
Being an atheist, you won’t agree with anything I say, especially this one last quote from the article, but here it is: “… if you support what is now described in euphemistic terms as ‘the blessing of same-sex unions,’ in practice you are supporting the abolition of the entire Christian sexual ethic, and its substitution with an unrestricted, laissez faire, free sexual market. The reason that the homosexual rights movement has managed to pick up such a large contingent of heterosexual fellow-travelers is simple: Because once that taboo is abrogated, no taboos are left.”
Do you want your kid to live in a world like that?
Comment by sedonaman | May 12, 2008
I went to college in the 80's and 90's, sedonaman - yeah, I encountered plenty of homosexuals. I can honestly say that it was the heterosexuals, particularly the frat boys, who caused the most trouble. There was noise at 3am from the bar around the corner from our house when I was growing up - but that wasn't a gay bar.
But hey, that doesn't prove anything. As I said, the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. Even the article you link to is a string of anecdotes. It does seem plausible that monogamy would be harder for homosexuals than heterosexuals - at least, of the male variety. Human males are, on average, more sexually aggressive, more visually stimulated, and more sexually opportunistic than females. It's also easier for males to transmit STD than females. That article didn't address lesbians, it's worth noting. There are less than ten cases of documented female-to-female AIDS transmission, for example, and I'd expect lesbian relationships to be more monogamous. (Well, technically, they'd have to be - exclusive male relationships would be 'monandrous'.)
It's not clear that abrogation of the "Christian sexual ethic" would lead to total 'laissez faire' chaos. Certainly there are plenty of other non-Christian cultures that still maintain some sexual order, though often of a rather different form than we'd expect. The article you pointed to dismisses the notion of of "no one getting hurt and both parties being treated with respect" out of hand, but I don't see a real justification for that.
I do think sex is quite a bit more than just recreation in humans, and deserves quite a bit more respect than many people give it. On the other hand, I also think grownups should be free to make their own mistakes - freedom is the right to be wrong.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 13, 2008
Mr. Ingles:
"freedom is the right to be wrong"
No one (I repeat, no one) has the right to seek error. Everyone (I repeat, everyone) has an obligation to seek truth.
Freedom is doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do.
“…there are plenty of other non-Christian cultures that still maintain some sexual order…”
This is true, but if you destroy that particular order, the whole culture comes down.
Comment by sedonaman | May 13, 2008
Sedonaman - "No one (I repeat, no one) has the right to seek error. Everyone (I repeat, everyone) has an obligation to seek truth."
I didn't say that people have the right to 'seek' error. I said that they have the right to believe, and even argue for, things that are wrong.
Are you by any chance an old-school Catholic? It sounds like you'd agree with Popes Pius IX and Gregory XVI, who called it "insanity" to believe that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." I mean, sure, you could tolerate heretics and adherents of other religions if it would be too much trouble to exterminate them, but that was just a lesser evil, y'know.
This, of course, leads to cases like that of Edgardo Mortara.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 13, 2008
"I said that they have the right to believe, and even argue for, things that are wrong."
Sounds like seeking error to me. Are you by any chance a member of NAMBLA? The ACLU, perhaps?
Comment by sedonaman | May 13, 2008