Posted on 11/15/2005 1:54:56 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11
Center for Data Analysis Report #05-08
A few Members of Congress, motivated by American combat in the Middle East, have called for the reinstatement of a compulsory military draft. The case for coercing young citizens to join the military is supposedly based on social justice—that all should serve—and seems to be buttressed by reports of shortfalls in voluntary enlistment. In a New York Times op-ed on December 31, 2002, Representative Charles Rangel (D– NY) claimed, “A disproportionate number of the poor and members of minority groups make up the enlisted ranks of the military, while most privileged Americans are underrepresented or absent.”[1] This claim is frequently repeated by critics of the war in Iraq.[2] Aside from the logical fallacy that a draft is less offensive to justice than a voluntary policy, Rangel’s assertions about the demographic makeup of the enlisted military are not grounded in fact.
Although all branches of the armed services have been able to meet recruiting goals in recent years, the Army’s difficulty in meeting its goal of 80,000 new soldiers in 2005 has been widely reported, and some view it as a symbol of the need to reinstate the draft. However, this shortfall should be placed in the proper context. The Army is projected to fall just 7,000 (about 9 percent) short of its 2005 recruitment goal, which is less than 1 percent of the overall military of over 1 million personnel. Furthermore, there is the unexpected rise in re-enlistment rates. In other words, the total force strength is about what it should be.
Since the draft was discontinued in 1973, all branches of the U.S. military have relied entirely on volunteers to fill their ranks. There are constant challenges in maintaining a balanced supply of recruits for force strength and composition, but three decades of experience confirms that the voluntary policy works well, despite widespread skepticism in the early 1970s. The same cannot be said of a conscripted force, as evidenced by the backlash among troops and the public during the Vietnam conflict. Despite the Pentagon’s strong preference for an all-volunteer force, some politicians and many voters favor a draft.
A June 2005 Associate Press/Ipsos poll found that 27 percent of respondents supported “the reinstatement of the military draft in the United States.” Reinstatement of the draft was far more popular immediately following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when 76 percent of Americans supported a renewed draft if “it becomes clear that more soldiers are needed in the war against terrorism.”[3]
Although Representative Rangel’s bill to reinstate the draft failed by a decisive vote of 402–2 in the House of Representatives in 2004, the issue will likely be considered again, especially if there are more terrorist attacks on the U.S.
Some motivations for the draft are entirely patriotic in the sense that they aim to protect America from aggressors. Others see the draft as an instrument of equality, as well as an instrument of pacifism.
Representative Rangel’s theory is that if all citizens faced equal prospects of dying in a conflict, support for that conflict would have to pass a higher standard. This theory assumes that the privileged classes would be less willing to commit the nation to war if that conflict involved personal, familial, or class bloodshed. It also assumes that the existing volunteers are either ignorant or lack other options—that is, they are involuntary participants. One way to test this thesis is to explore the demographic patterns of enlisted recruits before and after the initiation of the global war on terrorism on September 11, 2001.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm?renderforprint=1
Clickable link:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm
bump.
I suspect that Rangel only wants to intitute a draft so the lefties can throw it back at Bush. If and when a Dem is in the White House--all other things being equal--a draft is the last thing a Dem senator would propose.
" Representative Rangel’s theory... "
It is not a theory. It is a political ploy.
Spade = Spade!
Not that I know of....
Also, the oft-told tale of young criminals being offered the choice of jail or military service is also bullsqueeze. The military rarely takes anyone with a criminal record.
ping
Very interesting.... thank you!
The reason that the Demos want the draft back is that it gives them a chance to re-create the sixties, with anti-draft marches and riots in the street. And really that is the only reason.
We now see that the only attempt to reinstitute the draft was authored by a Demo.
I scanned down and didn't see the statistics for female enlistment. This report seemed to focus on income and race.... Was it in this report? Or one you've seen?
2. Charlie, shut your pie hole. NO ONE twisted their arm and made them sign on the dotted line. IF they came there to better their lives, make something of themselves, they DID IT THEMSELVES.
Rangel voted AGAINST his own bill to reenstate the draft during the last session. Rangel, BLABBercrombie and the rest of the liberal socialists only want to oppose, condemn and attack President Bush when they say anything the know the press will publish.
"The military rarely takes anyone with a criminal record."
That's correct. As one who used to process new enlistment packets, getting waivers (for other than minor traffic stuff) is a total PITA and Recruiters will always take a clean recruit over a troubled youth and a HS Grad over a GED or non-grad. ;) Somewhere in the pages of data in this study is the fact that 98% of recruits do have HS degrees, if not more education. Equivalent civilian populations only have a 75% HS graduation rate.
It's incredibly expensive to train up a raw recruit, something like $40K a head or more depending upon their eventual speciality in the military. It's almost always money down the drain when you bet on a loser. And believe me, the Recruiters get chewed on about it by their Higher Ups on a regular basis.
The article just thrilled me to no end. Dr. Kane put a TON of effort into this one, and it's a great resource.
Those who volunteer to do so.
They didn't break it out by sex, just race/ethnicity, household income, education and region of the USA.
It is a great resource, and I hope enough people read it and pass it to Rangel.
Thanks for posting.
Thanks! No surprise, there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.