>Or do you mean that middle class folks join to serve in enlisted ranks? I >doubt that. Every study I've seen has reported that the ranks of enlisted >are overwhelmingly made up of the poor, lower class and minorities.
"Overwhelmingly made up" to me indicates a 75% or at least 60%...which would be an impressive recruitment rate given the lower graduation and GED rates of poor and lower class which are disqualifiers for most service (ask me again when Rumsfield eliminates that standard). There are stats for both sides, NPP and Heritage seem to have recent competing studies (not vouching for the validity of either as I haven't read them).
But my guess is if you look at ALL five armed services you'll get a bell curve roughly equivilant with proporitionate population groups. There may be regional variations and/or branch specific variations in recruiting patterns but I'm pretty confident the bulk of the bell would fall in the upper-lower class, middle class, and a small segment of the upper class. Abject conditions of poverty do not breed the preconditions (felony free record and/or GED/highschool graduation) needed for typical recruitment. Not saying that may not be getting smudged these days as they're tight for troops.
>Actually, Bush the elder issued an Executive Order that stated that >college enlistment would no longer defer one from military service if one >was called upon to serve.
In these days any draft bill would be so laden with amendments and provisions before it got passed by Congress that I wouldn't be suprised if college was still excepted you AND there was $5m for a freeway in Alaska tucked into it by the time it was done. =)
>That's a decent start. But I'd rather see us get rid of the standing army >and have quasi-local, but nationalized, militias composed of conscripted >recruits.
I think we'll have to fundamentally disagree there. I believe the states should maintain their militias (which pre Iraq were often better equipped) while the US maintains a standing armed force (which is always better trained but not always as well equipped). It's a check/balance. The US military model is to pay exhorbiantly for technology and training in tradeoff for a reduction of casualty and duration of war (a model that Iraq may turn on its head). I do think we have put too heavy a burden on the armed forces (standing & reserve) by fighting a three front war facing the opening of an additional front potentially in Korea.
>I believe that *every* single U.S. citizen has an obligation to provide >this country with two years of service, (either military or social) upon >graduating High School.
I go as far as the voluntary enlistment act - we pay for college, you serve your two years (domestic/foreign civic/military) active six years reserve after graduation compensation model. If you can't get into college to begin with (bad grades, no money etc.) you serve first and we automatically enroll you during/afterwards. I can deal with that. I also think we should drop the don't ask and allow what gays are willing to openly serve, and bring women into most combat roles (Israel has had success here and the distinction between combat/non combat roles is meaningless in places like Iraq anyways).
But the utility of conscription is too low. You get marginal perceived equalization of sharing the burden for, in my opinion, too high a cost in reduced morale, limited training and desire of the soldiers we employ. I'm not going to make a blanket statement - but my belief is that citizen armies trump auxuliry armies, and professional standing citizen armies trump levied citizen armies. There's probably examples back and forth, just my gut instinct.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: my initial <point> was the whole fraud for war thing...
Date: 2006-07-05 10:02 pm (UTC)"Overwhelmingly made up" to me indicates a 75% or at least 60%...which would be an impressive recruitment rate given the lower graduation and GED rates of poor and lower class which are disqualifiers for most service (ask me again when Rumsfield eliminates that standard). There are stats for both sides, NPP and Heritage seem to have recent competing studies (not vouching for the validity of either as I haven't read them).
But my guess is if you look at ALL five armed services you'll get a bell curve roughly equivilant with proporitionate population groups. There may be regional variations and/or branch specific variations in recruiting patterns but I'm pretty confident the bulk of the bell would fall in the upper-lower class, middle class, and a small segment of the upper class. Abject conditions of poverty do not breed the preconditions (felony free record and/or GED/highschool graduation) needed for typical recruitment. Not saying that may not be getting smudged these days as they're tight for troops.
>Actually, Bush the elder issued an Executive Order that stated that >college enlistment would no longer defer one from military service if one >was called upon to serve.
In these days any draft bill would be so laden with amendments and provisions before it got passed by Congress that I wouldn't be suprised if college was still excepted you AND there was $5m for a freeway in Alaska tucked into it by the time it was done. =)
>That's a decent start. But I'd rather see us get rid of the standing army >and have quasi-local, but nationalized, militias composed of conscripted >recruits.
I think we'll have to fundamentally disagree there. I believe the states should maintain their militias (which pre Iraq were often better equipped) while the US maintains a standing armed force (which is always better trained but not always as well equipped). It's a check/balance. The US military model is to pay exhorbiantly for technology and training in tradeoff for a reduction of casualty and duration of war (a model that Iraq may turn on its head). I do think we have put too heavy a burden on the armed forces (standing & reserve) by fighting a three front war facing the opening of an additional front potentially in Korea.
>I believe that *every* single U.S. citizen has an obligation to provide >this country with two years of service, (either military or social) upon >graduating High School.
I go as far as the voluntary enlistment act - we pay for college, you serve your two years (domestic/foreign civic/military) active six years reserve after graduation compensation model. If you can't get into college to begin with (bad grades, no money etc.) you serve first and we automatically enroll you during/afterwards. I can deal with that. I also think we should drop the don't ask and allow what gays are willing to openly serve, and bring women into most combat roles (Israel has had success here and the distinction between combat/non combat roles is meaningless in places like Iraq anyways).
But the utility of conscription is too low. You get marginal perceived equalization of sharing the burden for, in my opinion, too high a cost in reduced morale, limited training and desire of the soldiers we employ. I'm not going to make a blanket statement - but my belief is that citizen armies trump auxuliry armies, and professional standing citizen armies trump levied citizen armies. There's probably examples back and forth, just my gut instinct.
And thanks for your service btw.
Tim C.