Article: Military Force Transformation & The Big "D"
I was forwarded an excellent op-ed post from a Marine Captain in today's NYT. Entitled: Don't Dumb Down our Military, it discusses the practical battle-tested positive aspects of maintaining a well-trained, motivated all-volunteer force and serves as yet another strong argument against re-instating the draft ever again.
Now, it should first be noted that military conscription (a.k.a 'The Draft') is not under serious consideration at this time, but as is the case in times of war, someone invariably drops the "D" word and politicians posture and prattle on about the lack of social equality on the battlefield. Bottom line: Its the race-card, played on the assumption that the less fortunate are, by virtue of their lack of occupational options, being forced to do the dirty work of the power elite.
There are several reasons I find this position disturbing. One is that is serves only to perpetuate the minority victim story. We're asked to suppose that the "less fortunate" are, in large part, America's minorities and that the "power elite" are, in general, old, rich and (naturally) white men. The op-ed author dispels this myth accordingly:
Some supporters of the draft argue that America's wars are being fought primarily by minorities from poor families who enlisted in the economic equivalent of a Hail Mary pass. They insist that the sacrifices of citizenship be shared by all Americans. The sentiment is correct, but the outrage is misplaced. There is no cannon-fodder underclass in the military. In fact, front-line combat troops are a near-perfect reflection of American male society.
Yes, some minority men and women enlist for lack of other options, but they tend to concentrate in support jobs where they can learn marketable skills like driving trucks or fixing jets, not throwing grenades and setting up interlocking fields of machine gun fire. African-Americans, who comprise nearly 13 percent of the general population, are over represented in the military at more than 19 percent - but they account for only 10.6 percent of infantry soldiers, the group that suffers most in combat. Hispanics, who make up 13.3 percent of the American population, are underrepresented at only 11 percent of those in uniform.
Interestingly enough, many of the politicians that pander to their minority constituencies with this lofty egalitarianism are, in fact old, rich and white themselves and their efforts are mostly cynical, pretentious attempts at playing champion of the underclass; a role I would think any self-respecting minority would find offensive. I say cynical because there is virtually no chance in hell a draft would be passed without a full-scale invasion of the U.S. homeland being imminent, but they still get the credit for 'trying'.
Another, more crucial objection I have to this misguided notion of battlefield-inequality is that it would serve only to degrade the operational capabilities and morale of our fighting force and would introduce thousands of living, breathing diplomatic liabilities into the most culturally sensitive situational environments.
As the author rightly suggests, conscription is precisely the wrong direction for military force transformation. But I'll got it one further: The status quo isn't good enough either. A cursory observation of the military's recruitment advertising demographic tells the story - they're looking for teenagers. And not that they shouldn't, to some degree. But they spend virtually not time or money recruiting professional, educated men and women.
On the surface, there are many possible reasons for the traditional military ranging from familial responsibilities to economics, inertia ("old dog/new tricks") or even just a more acute sense of one's own mortality - all valid reasons to prefer the "young and dumb and...(you know the rest)" over the more seasoned folk. That is, for the traditional military with its traditional mission. But to win the wars of the 21st century it will take our best and brightest and most motivated. To build failed states into viable nations will take professional skill sets and experience that can only come from men and women from our academic and corporate worlds. To promote understanding and goodwill we need a new standard of Warrior-Diplomat. We need individuals well-versed in culture, well-traveled and easily adaptable to shifting social customs. The "sailor on shore leave" stereotype has no place in the 21st century American military.Even in my as yet short time in the Army Reserve, its is abundantly clear that there would be use for two, three or even four times the number of existing units similar to my own Civil Affairs brigade. It seems logical that as we recognize the inescapable reality of future nation-building projects in the developing world, that we enlist the help of those non-traditional age citizen-soldiers. The prevailing traditions and myths that preclude many from even considering military service beyond their mid-20's must be shattered so that we may attract those talents that can fill gaping holes in our administrative battle-plans.
Now, it should first be noted that military conscription (a.k.a 'The Draft') is not under serious consideration at this time, but as is the case in times of war, someone invariably drops the "D" word and politicians posture and prattle on about the lack of social equality on the battlefield. Bottom line: Its the race-card, played on the assumption that the less fortunate are, by virtue of their lack of occupational options, being forced to do the dirty work of the power elite.
There are several reasons I find this position disturbing. One is that is serves only to perpetuate the minority victim story. We're asked to suppose that the "less fortunate" are, in large part, America's minorities and that the "power elite" are, in general, old, rich and (naturally) white men. The op-ed author dispels this myth accordingly:
Some supporters of the draft argue that America's wars are being fought primarily by minorities from poor families who enlisted in the economic equivalent of a Hail Mary pass. They insist that the sacrifices of citizenship be shared by all Americans. The sentiment is correct, but the outrage is misplaced. There is no cannon-fodder underclass in the military. In fact, front-line combat troops are a near-perfect reflection of American male society.
Yes, some minority men and women enlist for lack of other options, but they tend to concentrate in support jobs where they can learn marketable skills like driving trucks or fixing jets, not throwing grenades and setting up interlocking fields of machine gun fire. African-Americans, who comprise nearly 13 percent of the general population, are over represented in the military at more than 19 percent - but they account for only 10.6 percent of infantry soldiers, the group that suffers most in combat. Hispanics, who make up 13.3 percent of the American population, are underrepresented at only 11 percent of those in uniform.
Interestingly enough, many of the politicians that pander to their minority constituencies with this lofty egalitarianism are, in fact old, rich and white themselves and their efforts are mostly cynical, pretentious attempts at playing champion of the underclass; a role I would think any self-respecting minority would find offensive. I say cynical because there is virtually no chance in hell a draft would be passed without a full-scale invasion of the U.S. homeland being imminent, but they still get the credit for 'trying'.
Another, more crucial objection I have to this misguided notion of battlefield-inequality is that it would serve only to degrade the operational capabilities and morale of our fighting force and would introduce thousands of living, breathing diplomatic liabilities into the most culturally sensitive situational environments.
As the author rightly suggests, conscription is precisely the wrong direction for military force transformation. But I'll got it one further: The status quo isn't good enough either. A cursory observation of the military's recruitment advertising demographic tells the story - they're looking for teenagers. And not that they shouldn't, to some degree. But they spend virtually not time or money recruiting professional, educated men and women.
On the surface, there are many possible reasons for the traditional military ranging from familial responsibilities to economics, inertia ("old dog/new tricks") or even just a more acute sense of one's own mortality - all valid reasons to prefer the "young and dumb and...(you know the rest)" over the more seasoned folk. That is, for the traditional military with its traditional mission. But to win the wars of the 21st century it will take our best and brightest and most motivated. To build failed states into viable nations will take professional skill sets and experience that can only come from men and women from our academic and corporate worlds. To promote understanding and goodwill we need a new standard of Warrior-Diplomat. We need individuals well-versed in culture, well-traveled and easily adaptable to shifting social customs. The "sailor on shore leave" stereotype has no place in the 21st century American military.Even in my as yet short time in the Army Reserve, its is abundantly clear that there would be use for two, three or even four times the number of existing units similar to my own Civil Affairs brigade. It seems logical that as we recognize the inescapable reality of future nation-building projects in the developing world, that we enlist the help of those non-traditional age citizen-soldiers. The prevailing traditions and myths that preclude many from even considering military service beyond their mid-20's must be shattered so that we may attract those talents that can fill gaping holes in our administrative battle-plans.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home