Charles C. Moskos, Ph.D., a former draftee, is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Northwestern University, Chicago. He has been awarded the Distinguished Service Award, the U.S. Army's highest decoration for a civilian, and has been designated an Honored Patriot by the Selective Service System.
The US Army's recruiting issues are well under control, but talk of expanding the military, possibly even to its size at the beginning of Clinton's term, would be very likely to create real strains. Moskos' article, "Saving the All-Volunteer Force," discusses a solution that could offer immediate plusses and be be part of a stepped-up recruiting drive:
"The most practical way of alleviating shortfalls and excessive reliance on RCs [reservists] is to introduce a short-enlistment option targeted at college students and recent college graduates. The enlistment option would require 15 months of active duty."
The rest of Moskos' article explains how that would work, and why this idea makes sense.
UPDATE: James Joyner says the US Army began doing this very thing in May 2005. Oddly, the Moskos article is (as you can see) in a September 2005 publication and reads like an idea piece, not the advocacy piece it must be.
The article looks pretty good to me.
It answered most of my questions. The one snag I see is getting volunteers for guard duty. As the author pointed out it is pretty much a hated job, because it is boring and often cuts into your sleep time.
The idea of more MPs is good.
$15000!!! My Godness, a Spanish University militia man used to earn just $5000 in his entire one year term!
(though college is not so expensive)
A 15-month enlistment option would reduce personnel turnover and counter shortfalls in end strength.
I agree.
The second argument opponents of short enlistments put forth is that "today's military requires highly technical skills that cannot be met by shorttermers."
It also depends on the compatibility between duties and studies carried out. Science graduates and undergraduates can learn quickly, though they would always lack experience.
Guard duty would be an appropriate task for a short-term enlistee.
I agree that short-term enlistees would gladly perform tasks that long term ones find demoralizing.
The total length of training for military police officers-from the time they enter service to completion of training-is 14 weeks.
14 weeks running, shooting and crawling on your stomach... I think it is OK.
A 15-month enlistment accompanied by educational benefits would attract college students and graduates who never would have considered entering the Armed Forces.
... thus serving your country.
M. Simon (#1)
ho ho ho ho I've never slept again as well as I did before military service.
Joe,
The Moskos article is from 2005. In fact, the Army instituted a 15-month enlistment option in May 2005, as I "noted at the time"http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2005/05/army_offers_15-month_hitch/ at OTB.
Joe,
The Moskos article is from 2005. In fact, the Army instituted a 15-month enlistment option in May 2005, as I noted at the time at OTB.
fixed html
I'm not keen on this idea. The kind of person who joins the service just to get an enlistment bonus isn't the type of person I want in the military. Especially given the ,low-caliber of todays youth. I really don't want an auxiliary of troops with perpetual "short timers" attitudes.
You want to draw more people, make military duty tax free (I always thought it funny that I was paying my own pay).
Drop "dont ask don't tell", I knew far too many gay service members and it was common knowledge around the command, yet it never caused a problem and its absolute discrimination.
Offer citizenship for service, if the military is "a job Americans won't do" offer a path to citizenship with a 4 year enlistment (honorable discharge required) and ensure enlistees are fluent English speakers.
Gabriel recruiting Gays or foreigners is not the answer.
The Military requires ... high IQ individuals. Because the equipment (Aircraft carriers to advanced fighters to tanks and artillery) they operate are highly complex and only high IQ individuals can do the work.
In addition, the military requires motivated people who will work a 12 hour shift day in and out for weeks at a time out of patriotism and duty.
Neither are going to be found in any significant numbers among either gays or foreigners who are either by definition not Americans or culturally incline to anti-Military attitudes and negative inclinations towards patriotism (for the most part).
There seems no great clamor of either gays or foreigners to join the military.
In addition, recruiting gays and foreigners (assuming for a moment they DO possess high levels of patriotism and desire to serve in the Military) would not solve the basic problem: not enough High IQ people enlisting in the military.
The issue IMHO has no magic fix, rather long term fixes requiring political will:
*spend more money on troop levels and especially long-procurement things like airplanes, ships, and tanks for the troops to use in combat.
*raise pay and benefits by orders of magnitude and pay for it by cutting goodies of the corporate variety including Dem favorites.
*Push back on the anti-military attitudes among Dems/Libs/Media elites and make a political climate that does not hang troops out to dry with say, Pelosi's threat to cut off funds to the troops in the field.
I think there are plenty of high-IQ gays/foreigners, the option should be on the table is what I'm saying. I don't propose having a massive influx of foreigners to be the majority of our armed forces, but the incentive should be there to be utilized.
And honestly, as a former member of the armed forces, the "high IQ" requirement really was never that apparent to me, and I worked primarily within the Medical and SpecOps communities, both of which require far more mental capacity than your standard grunt.
I did a good amount of cross training with foreign military members and thus, I see the value in a motivated foreigner who wants to join our armed forces and in turn be rewarded with citizenship if that was his/her wish.
Sexual orientation should have zero bearing on military recruitment. Sexual actions while on duty, if they break the UCMJ (which seriously needs updating) should be punished. We don't routinely punish service members who have sex on ships, yet we exclude a class of citizens who have just as much desire to serve (and have served from day one) from doing so based on a moral hangup. This to me seems counterproductive.
Being realistic (not in the Baker mold) I do understand the pushback of rank and file against gays in the service, thats primarily why I never had a big problem with don't ask don't tell as a general rule, but members who wish to serve who are openly gay shouldn't really be precluded from doing so.
#6 Jim R.,
The article stated that the 15 montth tour was attractive to people in college.
I don't know what their reserve commitment is, but at the very least they would be available for a dire emergency surge. Not a bad idea.
ROTFLMAO!
But I'm curious, is Condi the exception to the the "most gays aren't too bright" rule?
"The enlistment option would require 15 months of active duty."
Hmm.
"Doe, who had previously seen combat in Iraq, joined the California National Guard in April under a one-year enlistment<(b> offered to veterans with previous active-duty service. He was told he would not be sent to Iraq during this enlistment, Sondheimer has said. Last month, Doe's unit was mobilized for 545 days of active duty service in Operation Iraqi Freedom, sent to Fort Lewis for training and is expected to be deployed to Iraq on Nov. 20."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4186/is_20041107/ai_n11707290
Does Prof Charles C. Mosko, Ph.D., obviously an educated man, really think college students and graduates never heard of 'stop loss'? He must be a hell of an ignorant elitist...
I think there are rather boring tasks for long term enlisted men that would be gladly performed by short term ones. I've seen that in the Spanish army, which had a mixed professional-draftee system for some time.
In addition, I find short term involvement a good option for people that wants to serve his country in the military but for any reason cannot dedicate 2-4-6 years.
15 months puts service in the range of Peace Corps or teaching English abroad or any number of other random things young graduates do to see the world and get some experience before they settle down. Full enlistment seems like a career choice, and most people with options nowadays want to keep those options open, and a year or two is all most recent graduates are willing to commit to. I think it's a great idea. Some of them might even stick around and become professional soldiers, and those that don't, at least they'll filter back into the population with a better understanding and appreciation of those that stay.