Feasibility – YES!
SOS (Service Over Self) America has to answer four tough questions. They are:
- Is the idea of universal military conscription for a period of one year a good idea for the nation and the young people?
- Can we (The United States) financially afford universal conscription?
- Is there political will to enact the program?
- Will the SOS America program, when enacted, significantly change the current all-volunteer force?
- Yes, National opinion before and after 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina demonstrates that there is broad support and approval for a one year, universal, military, conscription program and enabling legislation. Some want two years but costs and absorption factors, at present, mitigate against a two-year program.
- Yes, the program is affordable and would only take about 4 percent of the current defense budget to put in place and operate. Tangible and intangible benefits to the nation far outweigh this modest cost.
- Not yet. Congressional advocates are required—some ‘tigers’ -some statesmen or women to sponsor the necessary legislation.
- Yes, the current volunteer force will be smaller with the augmentation of conscripts and should ‘fill up’ quickly as many will choose for a longer tour with higher pay and rewards versus conscript duty. All the services plus the Guard and Reserves (and other Federal, State and Local entities) will benefit from having enough military personnel to defend our country and perform nation-building tasks.
SOS America (Service Over Self) is it a worthy idea or not? You Tell Us.
This is the key question that every American needs to answer. If you believe that the nation and the young people will benefit from a year of military service, then the answer is yes. The discussion then turns to practical details like affordability and implementation. If the answer is no, then the discussion changes to why not.
As stated, the overwhelming reaction to the idea of universal military conscription for a period of one year (at least) for all America’s young men ages 18-26 (young women may volunteer) has been very positive. Polling efforts demonstrate support for the concept. Informal focus groups and reaction to outreach efforts all point to the ‘worth ‘of the proposed program.
Specifically, people over 45 strongly support the program in the 75+ percent range with women overall slightly more supportive. Those in the 27 to 45 age group are very supportive with results in the 65 percent range with a noticeable increase since 9/11 and the number of natural disasters that could have usesd in place and trained personnel.
There are certain negative sentiments expressed in this 27-45 age cohort by a minority who are not supportive that can be summarized by: “My boy doesn’t need to be in the military, he’s a good boy-an educated boy from a good family” or “I don’t want my son shot at”. Another chilling response: “Let somebody else do it——them-the poor kids.” If we consider the millions who have answered the country’s call in WW2, before and after, and their value to the nation, surely this reluctance to see the value is short sighted if, unfortunately, understood.
The young men in the potential conscript cohort have split views. The younger men (18-20) show modest interest (30% or so) with focus on other more hedonistic choices while those older (21-26) see the value of such service (50% plus). Interestingly, the young women (18-20) are very much in support of the young men being in the military (“take ‘em yesterday and go make men out of them”). The young women 20 to 26 are not supportive of seeing the young men being ‘taken away’ for a year. Keep the horseflesh on the ranch may be another way to phrase it.
Further, while young women certainly want the opportunity to be a part of the current volunteer force, they are not eager to be conscripts but believe there should be an avenue for those who do. Similarly, research has shown that there is no national sentiment to ‘draft’ women but there is a sentiment (given equality issues) that there should be a provision for them to volunteer to be conscripted. This is advocated in the SOS America proposal, as is the right, certainly, for women to serve in the all-volunteer force.
Another argument suggests that volunteer work is equally beneficial and should be emphasized over service in the military. Volunteerism is central to our functioning society and much good is done by many and should be encouraged. However, the central value of a common military and self-esteeming experience with requisite discipline and growth has a unique value. The testimony of those ‘who served’ and the attendant comradeship factors sound out loudly in support of the ‘military’ experience especially if that service is ‘for all’ and doesn’t allow the privileged or well placed others to be deferred.
Another argument is that the purpose of the military is to fight and win America’s wars and not be a ‘social engineering’ tool. SOS America agrees with the purpose but takes issue with the ‘social engineering’ reservation believing that the military and the civilian populations of democracies/republics need to be reflective of and supportive of each other. The military has always been seen as a moral repository of the nation and can only continue that role if its citizens serve. Many of the advances in civil liberties and opportunity and experiences have been because the military took a leadership role. Those who served came away with a new sense of citizenship, responsibility and belief in shared values-the essence of renewal for the nation and the individual. When called upon, we do need to fight and win our nation’s wars; we also need to win the peace-especially at home on a daily basis and the SOS America (Service Over Self) plan—enacted and a national program in place give us a way to do just that.
Is it affordable? Absolutely and with great payback for the nation.
The real question should be: Why can’t we afford it? The real answer is: We must afford it. However, simple assertions, much like those given by program opponents, are not sufficient. One must deal with numbers and costs and do so on an open basis mindful that opponents will try to do two things: (1) Create a conscription program so costly that it fails on its own merits. This is the ” Break the Bank” or “Gold Watch” approach (using huge cost factors generated by staff or a hired gun think tank engaged to ‘kill the idea). It is necessary to ‘get inside’ the costing assumptions and premises to combat these tactics. (2) Manufacture complexity in order to confuse, confound and generally wear out proponents for SOS America. Defense experts will also be called to support the status quo and decry those who would change the system and how it would be disruptive or impossible. Their favorite argument is kind of a husband/wife variety; ‘You just don’t understand’.
The facts are: SOS America supports all those who serve our nation in the military but the current all-volunteer force costs the taxpayers between $50,000 and $100,000 for each enlisted recruit (the variation is there because of different service approach and cost inclusion of personnel and infrastructure). This number may actually be low but it’s big enough to get our attention. This is the cost to access (often including a sizeable bonus), provide basic training, technical training and ship current volunteer force enlisted members to their first duty assignment. On average, one of these expensive recruits out of four (25%) does not finish their first, four year, tour of duty (2003 information suggests the number is closer to 33%). This is a yearly loss of over 5 billion dollars, plus the efforts and costs to backfill the lost skills. Recruiting efforts by all the services, the Guard and Reserves, are marked by enormous costs and use of thousands of talented enlisted professionals. Recruitment standards vary widely, service to service, including educational history and test scores, medical condition, drug use and criminal history, program availability and length of enlistment period. Numerous tasks, once a part of normal military life, are now outsourced because of a lack of manpower. This includes such familiar functions as KP, facilities and grounds maintenance, security, transportation and other key mission-support functions. There is a quality and a quantity shortage in medical, computer and other technical skills. In an attempt to attract and retain the necessary numbers and quality of personnel in the all-volunteer force structure, the services have de-emphasized the tenets of patriotism and service and sacrifice. They have tried to buy the loyalty and longevity of the enlisted force with disappointing results. In fact the all-volunteer force has been termed ‘the all paid for force’ and represents an effort to outsource our military needs at the peril of comprehensive citizen participation. This analysis is not meant to criticize those who serve in any way (we are always proud and support those in the service). The SOS America program is meant to make things better—to augment, reduce, and make more effective a real all-volunteer force.
Here are the basic numbers: The cost of the proposed universal, conscription program, on a yearly basis, is $21 billion. This ‘all in’ number will enable a cohort of 1.5 million young men to serve each year and corresponds to current American demographics. This is based on an annual expenditure of $14,000 per individual and includes: food, shelter, clothing, medical care, transportation, training and a small monthly stipend plus the salaries of the supervising professional soldiers. The current active volunteer force alone recruits around 233,000 young people a year with initial costs reaching $17 billion or an average of $75,000 per recruit or five times as much as the universal service model. Moreover, that $75,000 per recruit is just the active force cost and doesn’t include the National Guard and Reserve numbers and costs. The overall annual defense budget is about $440 billion. So, simplistically, $21 billion for the SOS America program of universal service takes less than 5 percent of the existing budget. If one subtracts only the money wasted by the annual looses to the ‘all volunteer’ force (5.8 billion dollars) then the cost to implement the SOS America program is only 15.2 billion or a little morte than 3 percent of the current Defense Budget. Given payback to the country, this is a bargain.
The object is not to drown in numbers but to get a feel for the basics involved. Again, critics will manipulate the numbers to confuse and confound, but the bottom line is that the nation can afford universal service if it wants to and not even come close to straining the budget—in fact there should be additional and substantial savings given the available personnel to do tasks either left undone or done at high outsourcing costs or on the backs of the current force.
Is there political will? We’re working on it.
Currently, there is little actionable political will at the federal level for universal conscription. Privately, a number of Congressmen and Senators favor the idea but are hesitant to support the concept given their understanding of the assumed costs and popular political thinking. They worry about their next election versus the next generation. Critics are quick to toss off the idea with a dismissive answer such as, “It would be a good thing but nobody wants it and we can’t afford it.” SOS America sampling efforts indicate that over 70% of Americans have confidence in and support the U.S. military. A strong majority favors the SOS America program and membership growth can be determinant in building political will (See also the survey icon for additional information). SOS America intends to create a large and nation wide membership with a focus that will cause an informed debate and result in the enactment of enabling legislation. If the people think this is a good idea and that the country needs it, our representatives will have to be accountable. SOS American members and leadership are increasingly active in seeking Congressional support. We ask the all to contact their representatives and advocate the SOS America (Service Over Self) program and support the legislation to make it happen.
Will the volunteer force change? Yes, for the better.
The SOS America program of universal service, again to emphasize, is not in any way critical of the people who currently serve. We recognize and support and are grateful for their service to our country. We just want to make the all-volunteer force more effective and more economical by using large numbers of conscripts to augment and assist. Especially since 9/11, security and other demands have demonstrated the need for large numbers of trained and motivated people.
SOS America is critical of the structure of the volunteer force for four reasons. (1) It costs too much. (2) It adopts the injurious principle of ‘let others do it’ and, increasingly, on a mercenary basis. (3) It separates the civilian and military communities by not having citizens with the advantage of the benefits of common and military service. (4) Lastly, the services struggle inordinately to meet our national needs because of the difficulty, costs, focus and effort required to achieve (when they do) recruiting goals and qualifications.
Additionally, the lack of all-volunteer commonality between the services, the varying incentives and requirements and length of service all contribute to the ‘all volunteer’ force being the imperfect offspring of a political expedient caused by the Vietnam War. The Armed Forces devote huge financial and personnel resource to try and make the all-volunteer force work to include civilian-like slogans and ad campaigns. The reality is that a program of national conscription would fill up the volunteer roles quickly – the truly volunteer positions would be of longer duration and more demanding of skill and talent. In summary, the volunteer force would continue to exist (see the plan) but be smaller and more effective given the large numbers of people now available to assist in the nation’s key tasks.
One last point, in private conversation, many senior military officers, experienced defense and officials and private business and civic leaders support the establishment of a universal service system knowing, intuitively, the benefits. Why don’t they speak out? Great question? Some are muzzled by political or personal restraint and many fear an adverse public reaction (despite the overwhelming majority view in support). Some just don’t support for their own reasons and that’s OK because this is America. The ongoing debate and proposed legislation will kindle arguments that will test the wisdom of the American people and our elected representatives. The purpose of our military is to defend the nation and its interests. SOS America (Service Over Self) gives the Active, Guard and Reserve the necessary people power to do the job and at the same time help renew our country.
