Physical limitations and conditions obviously have a bearing on whether the member can perform the tasks allotted as part of their service. So critical physical traits are delimiters.
And so is mental acuity — smarts. Not all recruits are called upon to diagnose and repair complex electronics systems or to analyze enemy intentions from bits of unrelated intelligence gathered. But smarter soldiers make better soldiers. There are only so many truck tires that need changing, so many potatoes that need peeling and low-scoring recruits on the Armed Forces Qualification Tests are limited in their range of utilization. Harshly put, just how much can a “dumb” soldier learn? Enough to do a job and to perform well and safely?
Persons with mental problems also are problematical. They may not adapt to the rigors of military life, often cannot comprehend their functions and necessity for them, or simply cannot deal with the stress of harsh and competitive environments. So there are constraints on accepting recruits with mental health issues.
But persons with felony convictions, even misdemeanors, may present the greatest problem and may well be unsuitable despite lax standards in recruiting. In the close, familiar confines of military life, personnel demand colleagues whom they can trust to share the load, to look out for one another and one another’s property and for their safety and welfare in situations of danger and stress — even their lives are dependent upon this relationship. Persons who have a history of criminal behavior have, in the minds of non-criminal types, already demonstrated their inability to “fit the mold” and behave in a fraternal and reliable, supportive manner.
But in the All Volunteer Force (AVF) today, in order to meet manpower requirements, the armed forces are resorting to accepting many who previously would have been unsatisfactory due to any or all the conditions listed above.
The grand argument, rising again and again — and will do so as long as there is a need for armed forces — is whether an AVF as we have now serves us best, or whether we should return to a selective service “draft” system. If the AVF cannot acquire enough volunteers, then some other system must serve; and the only other system we know is the draft, controversial as that may be. The question, in today’s desperate syntax, is a “hot button issue,” so controversial politicians run for the bar when asked even to comment upon the draft as a viable solution.
Throughout our nation’s history, we’ve had ample demonstrations of both AVF and the draft. One need only think of Gen. George Washington at Valley Forge, or Abe Lincoln when the first Union conscripts’ period of induction ran out, or the massive effort that eventually led to a force, under arms, of 12 million in World War II. This is not a new problem.
Arguments are fierce on both sides of the issue, but our national needs demand solution. In 2007 the Congressional Budget Office published an extensive study on the subject.
Every imaginable issue was grist for their mill, even concerns that were not present in the drafts of wars gone by. Now, family hardship enters into the formula; personal preferences carry much more weight than ever before, if in fact they ever existed before; comparative pay (with the civilian world) is a major issue under the aegis of the AVF. A compensation system in the domain of a draft has less need to pay competitive salaries.
(Next week: the CBO highlights and more angst.)
|