Comments for Up, Up, and Out - a NYT Op-Ed by Paul Kane

Up, Up, and Out - a NYT Op-Ed by Paul Kane

2009-04-22T12:54:11Z

Mr. Kane wrote an OpEd laying out some things he thinks President Obama should do to seize the moment to impose a major reshaping of the US military. I asked around the old warriors I know, who's experience spans from Korea to Right Now, and, among them, commanded at company, battalion, and brigade level, draftees and volunteers. This is Bill Tuttle's fisking of the Op-Ed. There's more to follow later today and whenever Dusty is on the ground long enough to contribute. My take? Mr. Kane is angling for a position in the Administration. On to Bill:

ROBERT GATES, the secretary of defense, has proposed a budget overhaul that will go a long way toward improving our national security, but more can be done to meet his long-term goal: creating the right military for the 21st century.

When you bring your car in for an overhaul, you don’t expect to get it back minus the quarter panels and spare tire.

Not since Henry Stimson’s tenure from 1940 to ’45 has a defense secretary been faced to the same degree with simultaneously fighting a war and carrying out far-reaching reforms. Yet there are three major changes Mr. Gates should add to his agenda, and they deserve President Obama’s support.

Probably the worst example he could have picked to buttress his argument. Stimson greatly *expanded* and diversified the Armed Forces, and was a firm believer in the dictum that being thoroughly prepared for war was the surest way to ensure peace. He would have hung a “Peace Through Superior Firepower” poster behind his desk.

Plus he was a Republican. And had no qualms about smacking our enemies.

First, the Air Force should be eliminated, and its personnel and equipment integrated into the Army, Navy and Marine Corps.

Personal bias aside, this would serve no useful function. First of all, who gets what? Would USAF assets be divided up equally between each service or would the Army take the bomb-droppers and air superiority aircraft, the Navy take the manned bombers and missiles, and the Marines take the transports? Or would there be a mix and match, with a concomitant purchase of additional support equipment for each type of aircraft each service would receive? Remember, instead of buying *one* hugely expensive widget to service the systems of three USAF transports on one USAF base, we’d now have to purchase two *additional* hugely expensive widgets – which would accompany the separate Army, Navy and USMC transports to wherever they went. Now add the logistical requirements for each type of aircraft and multiply that by three. So much for the old economy through centralization tenet…

Just figuring out what to do with all those surplus Air Force Bases will become a logistical – and political – nightmare. Do they become “Joint” facilities? Do they get BRAC’ed?Will the assets be moved to existing Army, Navy and Marine Air Bases that are unable to expand because of the civilian encroachment around them? What happens to the air assets during budget cuts when one service decides supporting the others isn’t a “core mission” any more, because, well, gee, they’ve got their *own* airplanes now?

Second, the archaic “up or out” military promotion system should be scrapped in favor of a plan that treats service members as real assets.

Okay, I find myself in agreement with that. I’ve never understood why the military insisted that people rise until they hit their level of incompetence, and then punish them for suddenly becoming incompetent.

Third, the United States needs a national service program for all young men and women, without any deferments, to increase the quality and size of the pool from which troops are drawn.

The author is obviously still living in Lake Woebegone. I can foresee no possible way in Hades that The Usual Suspects will give “no deferments” a pass. What do you do with 25,000 teenage asthma sufferers when you can only provide a dust-free environment for 1,000? Who pays for the meds for the remaining 24,000, and then pays for the resulting medical disability retirements?

And don’t believe for one second that Congerscritters won’t write exceptions into the law.

At the moment, the Army, Navy and Marine Corps are at war, but the Air Force is not.

“Epic Fail” on the author’s part. Read on to see why I said that.

This is not the fault of the Air Force: it is simply not structured to be in the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. While Army, Marine and Navy personnel have borne the brunt of deployments, commonly serving multiple tours, the Air Force’s operational tempo remains comparatively comfortable. In 2007, only about 5 percent of the troops in Iraq were airmen.

That was two years ago – based on personal observation, a *lot* more than 5% of the troops over here wear US Air Force nametapes. The author also failed to include airmen stationed in Afghanistan (or in the OtherStans), and he also didn’t bother to include the transients – the guys who fly in, drop the precision munitions that wax a Qaedaban ambush or bust up an assault on an outpost. He also failed to include the aircrews flying deployers in and re-deployers out.

I re-iterate – “Epic Fail.”

Yes, air power is a critical component of America’s arsenal. But the Army, Navy and Marines already maintain air wings within their expeditionary units. The Air Force is increasingly a redundancy in structure and spending.

Only insofar as they have a lot more stars than they really need. But then, so do the Army and the Navy.

War is no longer made up of set-piece battles between huge armies confronting each other with tanks and airplanes.

Which isn’t to say that it won’t be sometime in the future. The military that bases its strategy solely on fighting guerrilla wars will find itself being a speedbump for a military opponent that bases its strategy on blitzkrieg.

As we move toward a greater emphasis on rapid-response troops, the Army has tightened its physical fitness regime and the Marine Corps has introduced a physically grueling Combat Fitness Test for all members. Yet an Air Force study last year found that more than half of airmen and women were overweight and 12 percent were obese.

Different missions, different mission requirements, different mission environments. That’s not a defense of someone who purposely slacks off, but I’ll be blunt -- I’ve seen my share of flabby Soldiers and pudgy Marines and plump Sailors over here, too. Not everyone is humping hundred-pound rucks in the mountains.

Next, the current military personnel system is a peacetime bureaucratic construct that serves neither national security nor those who wear the uniform. Congress sets the level of manpower for each military service. Within this constraint, military planners have to decide how many riflemen, mechanics, cooks, medics, pilots and such there should be within the military’s job types, known as Military Occupational Specialties. Then the Pentagon has to decide how many people will be retained in the ranks or promoted.

The result is an “up or out” system that demands service members move up the ladder simply to stay in the military. Any soldier passed over for promotion twice must leave or retire.

Treating service members like so many widgets — in particular, the enlisted men and women who make up 85 percent of the ranks — is arbitrary and bad management. I have seen many fit, experienced officers and enlisted Marines arbitrarily forced out because there were only so many slots into which they could be promoted.

I have no heartburn with any of the preceding statements. Scratch that. I’ll be blunt and say I am in agreement.

The military should develop a new accounting and personnel system that tracks the cost of developing its human capital and tallies each service member as an investment with a fixed value based on his education, training, experience and performance. This would reflect the departure of a valued service member as an asset lost, not a cost cut. Why are fit men and women who have served in combat, a human experience that a million dollars can’t buy, being pushed out instead of retained for 15, 20, 30 years?

My ticket-punching detector just quivered. Faintly, but it definitely quivered.

Last, Mr. Gates should urge President Obama to confer with Congress and introduce national service at age 18 for all Americans. Under such a system, young people from all classes and backgrounds would either serve in the military or do other essential work like intelligence assessment, conservation, antipoverty projects, educational tutoring, firefighting, policing, border security, disaster relief or care for the elderly. The best qualified would be assigned to the military.

Aaaaand this will be paid for out of who’s budget? I see lots and lots of opportunity for a *huge* bureaucratic expansion, here, and it’s an order of magnitude above what DoD’s is, too. Education and training, cadre, medical care, clothing allowances, fitness reports – hell, gym memberships to maintain an appropriate level of physical fitness, ad infinitum…

The 1.6 million Americans who have served in the current wars represent less than one percent of all citizens. We need to spread the risk and burden of fighting our wars.

Why do we “need to spread the risk”? That isn’t a logical argument, it’s a sop to emotionalism, which is the absolutely worst way to arrive at a decision, let alone one on which our national defense depends.

If more of our national leaders had been in uniform, or knew they might have children at risk in war, their decisions during military confrontations might be better. And this is not just about the struggle against terrorism: would New Orleans reconstruction have lagged so long if we had had a national service program in natural-disaster recovery?

Rather, would NOLA’s recovery and reconstruction have lagged so long if there were some system of accountability for the reconstruction funds? There was a *huge* workforce salvaging the place, and nobody knows how many billions of dollars were funneled into it or where it all went. There’s been *no* accountability. Zero.

President Obama has the political capital to make these critical changes. Given the urgency of war and money available under the economic recovery plan, now may be our best chance for decades to truly modernize America’s defenses.

Not among his increasingly-disappointed adherents, he doesn’t. He might gain some on *this* side of the aisle if he made a U-turn in his headlong rush to piss off our allies and placate every socialist south of the Brazos River, but I wouldn’t bet a box of doughnut holes on that happening. At this moment, I don’t see that the C-in-C has given any indication he’s capable of making a decision of that magnitude. He is presently out of his political and intellectual depth with regards to anything defense-related, with no sign that he even bothered to put on a Coast Guard-approved PFD…

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-04-24

2009-04-24T11:30:24Z

how any given self-serving dilweed

Now is that any way to talk about Kerry, Gore, and Murtha? Have you no shame man?

Of course, it does apply to Duke Cunningham, even if it probably wasn't his primary motivation for serving.

Comment from Casey on 2009-04-23

2009-04-24T03:38:46Z

Man... I think this is the most comments in a single thread for a while.

Thanks to all who responded to my post. It is self-evident I misread was was posted before me, as I perceived a compulsory element from those who advocated national service. My bad...

As for those wrangling about voting privileges (privileges, after all, started out as defining "private law" for especially entitled persons), let me say that it all sounds wonderful, but the detail (as always) is in the details, just as in National Service.

Just about any standard you come up with can be manipulated and twisted to suit any given special interest, which is why the default has devolved down to "You're 18, and have committed no felonies. Congratulations, you may now vote!"

I still lean towards a modest local-residence requirement (say 24 months minimum actual residence, thanks so much Ms. Clinton of New York!), and perhaps a modest property requirement. Even owning a $2,000-evaluated car might be sufficient. That should keep out the carpetbaggers, temporary locals in college towns, and riff-raff out. Tax consumers need not apply.

...And even that position is arguably weak.

All this wrangling about qualifications misses the basic point, that of legally qualified electors for any given polis. Back in Classical Greece the electors were native, free male landowners. During Colonial America the requirement evolved into any free white male citizen of legal age; one of the freest suffrage's known to history for any large polis.

After the American Civil War, electors were (theoretically) expanded to include non-white adult males, which suffrage was extended to white females during the early 20th century.

The United States arguably only became a democracy (according to modern PolySci principles; feh) in the 1960s, after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

For all the posturing over Heinlein's Starship Troopers, no one has yet to enunciate the guiding principle as to why only those serving should be allowed to vote, and even then no one has explained how any given self-serving dilweed couldn't do his/her time, get their ticket punched, then advance politically later. In other words, it is quite possible that citizens could fulfill the formal requirement nicely, yet still miss the point of service to a greater good.

Which -as I said above- is why we have devolved to simplest-case propositions. Any more sophisticated idea sounds better, but offers far more negatives than positives during actual application...

Comment from Josh on 2009-04-22

2009-04-23T04:19:33Z

Really? Soooo, absolutely nothing has changed at the White House due to the existence of term limits?

Absolutely nothing. President Pinko would have won anyway, probably not by as much, but still comfortably. If George W. Bush could have been elected to a third term without term limits, then WITH term limits, somebody like him would have become a serious contender on the Republican side, and most likely would have won. However, all of the serious contenders on the Republican side proved to be radically different from W, and John McCain of course is just about the exact opposite of W. And he still lost, of course.

The ONLY difference between term limits and no term limits is that W probably would have run for the third term, and even though he would have lost, I could have voted for him and felt good about it, instead of voting for McCain, and hating myself for it even if it was purely a vote against President Pinko.

But, like the USN, the USAF is a global capable, immediate response, strategic asset that really shouldn't be messed with.

Interesting you say that...I was just last week reading an article in Strategic Studies Quarterly which contended that looking at USAF airpower as inherently strategic is a fallacy.

Comment from Argent on 2009-04-22

2009-04-23T03:46:22Z

I dunno Heartless I'm sure the wars didn't do just 35%. This is reaching for higher standards possible in all volunteeer. If the draft came there's no doubt to me standards would drop at best in the short term and that's ignoring all sorts of other problems. On the other hand a lot of those issues preventing participation are not really showstoppers and could lead to better overall Americans *if* dealt with well. If this sort of thing is desired then maybe a broader kind of volunteer activity would be good.

I still think it's a terrible idea.

Comment from Grimmy on 2009-04-22

2009-04-23T03:42:33Z

First, I'd like to thank BillT and others here for squaring me away on the USAF issue. As a former Marine, I always hated those bastiges. But, like the USN, the USAF is a global capable, immediate response, strategic asset that really shouldn't be messed with. I see that now much more clearly.

I did respond to this issue over at BlackFive. But, unfortunately, (or probably fortunately, considering the content of that comment) I can't seem to get the comments section to come up. Maybe they finally got wise and banned my arse.

On the national service issue... no. For every reason given. Just plain no. No qualifications to it. Just no.

On the Up or Out issue... something to think on there. Like it or not, the USMC has, and the US Army is, developed into an expeditionary force capable of working as independent elements in disaggregated force structures along the newly developed Distributed Operations model. This is more of a command/control/communications development rather than a combat armament adjustment. This means that units trained up to work as independent elements can reaggregate into larger unit structures as needful when larger battles must be fought along traditional lines, so it is not necessarily true that large unit maneuver war capability will be lost through this. But, it can become true that such will be lost if those in over-all command lose interest in maintaining the abilities and specific skill sets required for such (the site owner brought up the issue of massed artillery fire training, for example).

One thing that is necessary in DO force adjustments is a much higher competence and experience at command decisions and cause vs effect issues at a much lower level of organization than is the custom with military organization. I do not know how that issue can be competently addressed, but longer retention of highly skilled and command capable personnel at lower order unit levels is going to become a recognized need soon, I suspect.

Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2009-04-22

2009-04-23T01:03:11Z

Yes, the biggest problem with the idea of bringing back the draft is the fact that only somewhere around 35% of the relevant population (18-24 year olds) meet current standards for induction. (At least for the Army) This is for reasons that vary from medical conditions to being overweight to criminal records to drug use to lack of education.

What does he propose doing with the other 65%?

Comment from Justthisguy on 2009-04-22

2009-04-23T00:29:31Z

National Service? Umm, the Founders got that right the first time. Volunteers only for foreign wars, and everbody else shows up for militia drill with rifle, ammo, boots, rucksack, etc., or he doesn't get to vote.

Comment from DL Sly on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T23:19:43Z

"I don't believe for a second that term limits actually change anything."

Really? Soooo, absolutely nothing has changed at the White House due to the existence of term limits?

"I just typed a response and then my computer ate it."

Did it burp, too? Mine always burps when it does that. 0>;~}

Comment from Argent on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T23:16:45Z

I disagree with that Josh. We don't have term limits on our leader but you guys do and I think throwing them out before they ossify completely has more advantage than disadvantage.

Comment from Josh on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T22:57:53Z

Personally, I would like to see term limits for all elected officials -- to include all levels of the Judiciary. This would serve two purposes, first those elected officials would know they were on a time limit - which I admit could only serve to encourage those with *less than* honourable intentions to get while they can and never do the job they were elected to do. However, they would still only be able to get away with it for a specified amount of time. 0>;~} It would also force the voting population to choose someone else. Many voters simply cast their ballot for the guy who's already there, because.......well, because he's already there. Take away that safety net. Make them look at someone else.

I just typed a response and then my computer ate it. Long story short...I don't believe for a second that term limits actually change anything.

Comment from Curtis on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T22:43:05Z

In regards to the Air Force; the man is a fool. The AF has its' issues, it doesn't play nice with its sisters, but it is a necessary branch with an important job.

In regards to the second idea; I'll give it a reserved nod of approval. Military pay and rank structure is steeped in hundreds if not thousands of years in tradition. In other words, its nearing obscolescance, and no one really knows it. When the E-4 who barely passed the asvab and works at the gym makes the same as the E-4 rappelling off the helicopter and the E-4 working on nuclear weapons, something is kind of hinky. Officer ranks could use some closer paying attention to. Favorite convesation I've ever overheard.

O-1. "I guess you had to hunt down the guy with the bachelors degree to fix your problem huh?"
E-5 "With all respect sir, I have a masters' degree. And I've worked on this system for six years. I can't swear to it, but I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about."

As for the last "Fixit" this guy issed; There are so many problems with this plan, its not even funny. The medical issues are the first problem. Obesity, asthma, ADD, Bipolar schizophrenics, diabetics, drug users, we would wind up with some pretty jacked up "units". What do you do with the several hundred thousand Non to limited English speakers you wind up with?

Now, if your idea is simply to extend registration to the female half of the population, so that we can collect thier names and IDs for the next time we have to fire up the draft machine, then by all means knock yourself out. But the fact still remains that we as a population are medically unfit to fight large scale wars. The draft won't work next time, the doorways' aren't big enough for three quarters of our population to squeeze thier oversized buttocks through. They'll run out of breath walking before they ever make it to the draft office. You better put a bench halfway up the stairs so these kids and stop and take a breather.

Comment from DL Sly on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T22:38:34Z

Believe me, Josh, I understand and empathize with you WRT voter ignorance. However, I also see the theory you've put forth as a very slippery slope. For one, the only way to *regulate* such a system would mean placing even more control into governmental hands -- with the current batch of lemmings infesting the halls of Congress such control would virtually guarantee that only *their* lemmings would ever be allowed to run for office or vote in elections - any election, from local yokels to Congress. It's bad enough when voters don't hold up their end of the deal by understanding who and what they're voting for. An example of that type of irresponsibility is currently squatting within the halls of the White House. But, those voters had choices to select from. Given government regulation over who can and cannot run, those choices would come down to essentially Joe Blow or ...Joe Blow, with only Joe Blow Jr. and Joe Blow III allowed to vote. I see that as neither democratic nor even realistic.
Personally, I would like to see term limits for all elected officials -- to include all levels of the Judiciary. This would serve two purposes, first those elected officials would know they were on a time limit - which I admit could only serve to encourage those with *less than* honourable intentions to get while they can and never do the job they were elected to do. However, they would still only be able to get away with it for a specified amount of time. 0>;~} It would also force the voting population to choose someone else. Many voters simply cast their ballot for the guy who's already there, because.......well, because he's already there. Take away that safety net. Make them look at someone else. While it may not encourage all voters to educate themselves on the issues and candidates, it would prod some, maybe many. You can't please everyone all the time. I'd be happy with getting *many* to think before voting.

Comment from Josh on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T22:38:18Z

It sounds nice on paper Josh but I think the idea is pretty crap. Before long voting will be restricted by race and gender and then limited to those of the King's pleasure.

Yeah but if you throw the "slippery slope" argument around that easily, you can stop EVERY change to EVERYTHING. We're talking about making a change that would necessarily be by Constitutional amendment, which is about as slow and considered as it gets. It's not as if we would do something like this and then, suddenly, start adding in new restrictions entirely without noticing. You can't amend the Constitution "under the radar".

Comment from Argent on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T21:34:24Z

War is no longer made up of set-piece battles between huge armies confronting each other with tanks and airplanes.

I think if this advice were rignorously followed the US might well be asking for one of those huge tank and airplane kind of wars.

It sounds nice on paper Josh but I think the idea is pretty crap. Before long voting will be restricted by race and gender and then limited to those of the King's pleasure.

Comment from Josh on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T21:12:43Z

I'm sorry, Josh. I just can't see it your way.

Fair enough, that's nothing new to me. I don't mind if people disagree with me, so long as they understand what I'm actually saying.

Everything you've said boils down to forced servitude in order to *pay* for the freedom to run for office or vote in elections. (A debt that was paid in tre' by the blood, sweat and tears of those who have fought and continue to fight for this country.) That, IHMO, is not what a free society is all about.

Yes. Some freedoms are a natural, self-evident right. Some freedoms must be earned. And some freedoms are just limited and are never universal, which is one of the necessary evils of society and civilization. I suppose I just see this as a freedom that maybe should be earned instead of given as birthright.

We don't trust people to drive two-ton automobiles on public streets until they've earned the freedom by getting their license (I happen to think that licensing and driver training needs to be VASTLY more extensive, on par with Germany, but that's another issue). Similarly, I don't see why we should trust every citizen to exercise political power over the rest of the country simply because they have been alive for 18 years.

It's a hell of a lot harder to teach people to be responsible, informed, rational citizens than it is to teach them to drive...but a few years of national service might at least be a decent way to earn the right to exercise political power over the nation by doing something to benefit that nation.

This, of course, puts the burden of knowing the about the politicians and their policies upon the voter -- which, is where it belongs in the first place. That means the voter needs to educate themselves on the issues on the ballot, the platforms the politicians stand on, and how those positions reflect each voter's values before they go into the voting booth.

Of course...but do they? I submit that the VAST majority do not.

Comment from DL Sly on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T20:29:30Z

I'm sorry, Josh. I just can't see it your way. Everything you've said boils down to forced servitude in order to *pay* for the freedom to run for office or vote in elections. (A debt that was paid in tre' by the blood, sweat and tears of those who have fought and continue to fight for this country.) That, IHMO, is not what a free society is all about. WRT elections, the freedom to run for office is countered by the freedom of the voters to choose whom they want. And, whether you want to believe it or not, elections are popularity contests. Period. What the candidates are popular for is a question each voter should be answering before casting their ballots. This, of course, puts the burden of knowing the about the politicians and their policies upon the voter -- which, is where it belongs in the first place. That means the voter needs to educate themselves on the issues on the ballot, the platforms the politicians stand on, and how those positions reflect each voter's values before they go into the voting booth. Or is that requiring too much responsibility from We the People when it comes to electing those whom we would place in position of power over us?

Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T19:41:46Z

"Cannot be denied on account of failure to pay poll or other tax, or previous condition of servitude".....would effectively nullify any requirement for some kind of forced service/payment in order to be able to vote. Don't you think?

servitude–noun 1. slavery or bondage of any kind:

service - noun 9. the duty or work of public servants.
10. the serving of a sovereign, state, or government in some official capacity.

It may be semantic hair splitting, but I think that's the difference right there: involuntary servitude versus voluntary service. Under the system envisioned in Starship Troopers, nobody was forced to serve, and those who did not still enjoyed all other rights except voting.

The relevant amendment was written due to laws in the slave states which barred freed slaves (or, in many cases, descendants thereof) from voting.

I'm sure lawyers could go round and round on this, but I don't see anything legally wrong with conditioning the francise on performance of some sort of voluntary service.

Comment from Grumpy on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T19:39:12Z

Bill, a good article, I don't know what Mr. Kane was smoking, but it's gotta' be some *good stuff*!

Comment from Josh on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T19:21:19Z

"Cannot be denied on account of failure to pay poll or other tax, or previous condition of servitude".....would effectively nullify any requirement for some kind of forced service/payment in order to be able to vote. Don't you think?

That's obviously not what it's talking about...but yes, that phrase would probably get changed as part of the amendment.

We already have a system in place that does that very thing, though. With the exception of recent events, most politicians *cut their teeth* on a local/city level before moving onto state/national levels.

Holding city or county political office is not "service", at least not in the sense that is being discussed.

They got those positions by asking for votes from their local friends, family, co-workers -- citizenry -- who know them or know of them. Don't like the job they did for you? Don't vote for them again. Or, if they did as they said they would do when they asked for your vote, vote for them again. But the idea that of having to do something 'extra' in order to *buy* the opportunity to ask you for your vote? Sounds like requiring a mechanic to fix something for free (giving something of value -- his time and parts) on your car before you'll let him fix what you brought the car in for in the first place.

The problem is that, without any sort of selective franchise, we get politicians, and voters to support them, with no sense of responsibility or duty. The process of voting and elections ceases to be a way to choose good policy and becomes a simple popularity contest, dependent on choosing groups and population segments to pander to and appease in petty and useless ways, often at the expense of other groups and population segments not chosen as targets. It sometimes looks more like feudalism than meritocracy, where government is not about doing the best thing for those who are governed, but rather about manipulating the population to amass power for its own sake.

A more limited franchise wouldn't lead to a perfect system...but it could make things better than this.

Comment from DL Sly on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T18:40:30Z

"So yes, if you want the right to exert your will over me and the rest of the country through voting for government and weilding the power of political office...yes, I think it may be reasonable for you to "purchase" that power over me and everybody else by paying us a little of your time and effort first."

We already have a system in place that does that very thing, though. With the exception of recent events, most politicians *cut their teeth* on a local/city level before moving onto state/national levels. They got those positions by asking for votes from their local friends, family, co-workers -- citizenry -- who know them or know of them. Don't like the job they did for you? Don't vote for them again. Or, if they did as they said they would do when they asked for your vote, vote for them again. But the idea that of having to do something 'extra' in order to *buy* the opportunity to ask you for your vote? Sounds like requiring a mechanic to fix something for free (giving something of value -- his time and parts) on your car before you'll let him fix what you brought the car in for in the first place.

Comment from DL Sly on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T18:12:09Z

"...cannot be denied the priviledge and responsibility of voting on account of race, gender, age if over 18, failure to pay poll or other tax, or previous condition of servitude...."

"Cannot be denied on account of failure to pay poll or other tax, or previous condition of servitude".....would effectively nullify any requirement for some kind of forced service/payment in order to be able to vote. Don't you think?

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T18:11:55Z

Oooog. "Subject to recall." I can see it now --

Brigade S-3 (looking at 201 file): "And what's your date of rank, Captain?"

Me: "2 June 1970, son..."

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T18:03:15Z

Officers are by definition leaders, so you can't really shunt them off into non-leadership career paths.

But you *can* shunt them sideways in the same career field via RLO to Warrant. I held *two* commissions -- simultaneously -- one as an RLO in the USAR and one as a Warrant in the ARNGUS. Still do, even though I'm retired, because I'm subject to recall at the behest of the C-in-C.

And *Congress* sets the limit on the number of Warrants in the military, based on what the services report that they need .

Comment from Josh on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T18:02:52Z

I have qualms about limiting voting rights by service. As others have mentioned, it is too prone to abuse by those who have very strong ideas of what would constitute "valid" service. Plus, it goes against a silent but strong tradition in this country. You have already "earned" your vote by being a citizen, having given up your natural rights to enforce your own laws in exchange for a common agreement about laws that are enforced by duly constituted officials. "Consent of the governed" is the source of the government's power, and the check on the power is my vote.

I have qualms about it too...but I think it could be an improvement, if executed in a careful and considered manner.

Guess we'll just throw out that old dusty piece of paper that says as American citizens, we have the right to vote once we reach the proscribed legal age.

The Constitution has not historically guaranteed universal suffrage at 18. At first only white landholders could vote, then only men but not women, then men and women but not those under 21. Our idea of who is entitled to these rights has been very fuzzy over our history, and subject to repeated change. I'm not talking about throwing away the Constitution; I'm talking about amending it, and more specifically amending a part that has been reworked many times already.

And what if people don't want to take your (government controlled) *opportunity*? What then? They don't ever get to run for office or vote? I'm not sure I'm seeing your *true capitalist spirit* there. How, exactly, does that translate into voting rights, or the freedom to run for political office? And if one has to earn back their right to vote and their freedom to run for office, what's next on the *trading block* for the government to control? Telling us how many kids we can have and of what sex they must be?
Sounds silly? So does the idea that one must give something of value in order to be given back their right to vote.

The problem here is that voting and holding political office are NOT just rights to determine your own destiny. They are, mostly, rights to exert your own will over the rest of the population. They are not glorious and heavenly gifts from God bestowed upon every person so as to become fulfilled and complete. They are a necessary evil that we accept in order to maintain society and civilization.

So yes, if you want the right to exert your will over me and the rest of the country through voting for government and weilding the power of political office...yes, I think it may be reasonable for you to "purchase" that power over me and everybody else by paying us a little of your time and effort first.

Your rights to determine your own destiny are natural and self-evident. I wouldn't ever suggest to restrict them. However, your rights to determine MY destiny shouldn't be given out so freely and blindly.

Comment from DL Sly on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T17:48:23Z

As to "Up or Out" idea, I have already seen my fair share of good Marines and soldiers forced out due to frozen MOS's that don't or haven't promoted for several years running. One was an old high school buddy whose MOS -- military intelligence -- was frozen for the last 7 of his 22 years. He was forced out as an E-7 even though he had over 15 years M.I. experience from both sides of the wire.
My Pop, on the otter heiny, was one who was happy doing what he was doing. Back in his day, they tested for promotions, and he would always miss just enough to fail. One day his CO called him into his office to ask why it was that he always just missed the promotion score. Pop just kinda shrugged and played dumb. Then the CO brought out his last four tests and showed where he had correctly answered every question on the tests....just not on the same paper. That's when he told the CO that he was happy doing what he was doing, and that he didn't want to move behind a desk pushing paper -- which is where a promotion would have landed him. This was during Vietnam and my Pop was a radar man watching the middle section of the West coast from the Washington border to San Francisco. He had 20 years experience doing that very thing. His CO was smart enough to realize that a man of such experience was more valuable doing his job than pushing paper and have someone less experienced watching the skies.

Comment from Josh on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T17:45:27Z

But eventually, we won't be sending every ground unit into combat every other year. How do you get those commanders to move on? And how many Navy ship captains do you know who would give up their ship voluntarily unless they were taking over a bigger one?

[...]

I think this is an area where you have to find the least bad solution, and I'm not sure right now what that is.

You make a great point.

With enlisted personnel, I like the old '55-'85 system of specialist ranks above E-4...but that only works because they provided a non-leadership alternative to getting promoted up into leadership ranks. Officers are by definition leaders, so you can't really shunt them off into non-leadership career paths.

Maybe one thing you could do (and I'm reaching here) is to take those officers who do not desire to advance to higher levels, and use them to fill the requirements for instructors and mentors.

Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T17:42:55Z

Guess we'll just throw out that old dusty piece of paper that says as American citizens, we have the right to vote once we reach the proscribed legal age.

I'd really like to see you find such a document, since in all of my PoliSci and ConLaw classes, we never discussed it.

All the Constitution and subsequent amendments say is that people cannot be denied the priviledge and responsibility of voting on account of race, gender, age if over 18, failure to pay poll or other tax, or previous condition of servitude.

Other than those items, states are free to place whatever restrictions on the francise as they see fit.

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T17:36:19Z

Casey -- Kee-rect that Marine Air is pretty much tactically independent of the Navy, but it's totally dependent on the Navy for transportation to and from the scene of the action. It's a relatively small portion of the Corps and its mission doesn't conflict with that of the Nasal Respirators', so the Big Navy doesn't consider it a threat, even though I've heard some pretty parochial remarks about "carrying green sh*t on our ships."

* * * * * * * * * *
SWWBO -- You hit the nail on the head. Bring the draft out of deep standby and the Congers will slash pay as a cost-saving measure. The rationale behind the poor pay of the draft-era military was that being able to shop in the Commissary and the PX was a Good Deal, because prices were so doggone low. In the mid-'90s, the Congerscritters decreed that the AAFES price structure constituted unfair competition to local merchants, and, since the troops were now making decent money, it was only right that the Good Deal should vanish.

Resurrecting the draft will be a double economic whammy to military families, because pay will be cut and the AAFES prices *won't*. If you don't believe me, ask your local Commissary manager what will happen if he's told to lower prices without the federal fiduciary props that were in place until about 1995 or so...

Comment from DL Sly on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T17:32:54Z

"There are so many people out there with NO sense of volunteerism, or the national pride that helping out brings. This is something that has to be "indoctrinated" at a younger age- it's exactly why many high schools now have a community service requirement to graduate." [emphasis mine.]

Forcing someone to *volunteer* is slavery.
Indoctrinating them at an early age? Are you serious?? Cause that sounds eerily similar to Da Fuhrer's vision for Germany's youth.... In this I agree wholeheartedly with Casey. If it's important to you that your child have a sense of volunteerism, of giving to the community, then it's up to YOU to instill that value in them, not the school system. What if the school your child attends has teachers who are ardent supporters of Code Pink or PETA - or just plain hold values and beliefs that run 180 degrees to yours? Would you really want someone like that teaching your children what (their idea of) volunteerism means and how it supports (their idea of) our country's social construct?

"I think you could make a good argument for something like Robert Heinlein proposed...earning the rights to vote and hold political office through national [not necessarily military] service."

Guess we'll just throw out that old dusty piece of paper that says as American citizens, we have the right to vote once we reach the proscribed legal age. I mean, really, it's just taking up space anyway. I know! We'll have someone from the National Slavery Service take it down so they can earn their right to vote or run for office. They can give it to Code Pink to burn at their next Marine Corps recruiting office *Tag and Frag* party.

".What I said I wanted was, in the true capitalist spirit, people be given the opportunity to earn something of value by giving something of value."

And what if people don't want to take your (government controlled) *opportunity*? What then? They don't ever get to run for office or vote? I'm not sure I'm seeing your *true capitalist spirit* there. How, exactly, does that translate into voting rights, or the freedom to run for political office? And if one has to earn back their right to vote and their freedom to run for office, what's next on the *trading block* for the government to control? Telling us how many kids we can have and of what sex they must be?
Sounds silly? So does the idea that one must give something of value in order to be given back their right to vote.

Comment from bad cat robot on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T17:29:58Z

I agree that there should not be compulsory service. For one thing, advocates confuse cause and effect. Stand-up, responsible people volunteer because they are stand-up, responsible people. The service (whatever it may be) doesn't create those qualities if they didn't exist in the first place.

I have qualms about limiting voting rights by service. As others have mentioned, it is too prone to abuse by those who have very strong ideas of what would constitute "valid" service. Plus, it goes against a silent but strong tradition in this country. You have already "earned" your vote by being a citizen, having given up your natural rights to enforce your own laws in exchange for a common agreement about laws that are enforced by duly constituted officials. "Consent of the governed" is the source of the government's power, and the check on the power is my vote.

However, I would like to see some kind of opportunity for "useful civilian" type training (STRICTLY VOLUNTARY), something less rigorous or time-consuming than National Guard or Reserves, more like Home Guard or militia. I'd like to be more useful to my neighbors and town in an emergency, even if I can't make a serious time commitment (and let's be frank, my knees aren't doing any 20 mile marches either).

Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T17:23:32Z

I think the biggest arguments in favor of "up or out" come in the senior officer green tab command positions, battalion and above, and even at company and platoon level. That's where you get the guys who really love what they do and don't relish the thought of leaving their current job commanding troops to drive a desk on a staff somewhere. If you don't force them out of the job, they won't leave unless they get to move up the command ladder to the next level. (Although in the COE, where command means another deployment, at least for the Army, you do find a lot more guys willing to step aside, to the point that retaining post-Bn command O-5s with over 20 years is becoming an issue.)

But eventually, we won't be sending every ground unit into combat every other year. How do you get those commanders to move on? And how many Navy ship captains do you know who would give up their ship voluntarily unless they were taking over a bigger one?

The Army, at least, has had a system without "up or out" in the past - Robert E. Lee transferred from the engineers to the cavalry because there were no open slots to make LTC in the engineers. And the Guard still has it - I've met Guard officers who spent years with a (P) after their rank because they couldn't get promoted in their current position, and there weren't any openings at the next level.

I think this is an area where you have to find the least bad solution, and I'm not sure right now what that is.

Comment from Fishmugger on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T17:12:50Z

I add one more No to Josh's No's and totally agree with his position. Forced labor is forced labor and what will that teach? Sending some kids out to watch Elk fornicate...or is it copulate...(we may need a study after all)...well anyway...you would then have Congress dictating where these hordes are applied. Some will do great work, like mentoring...others will be kept busy picking up beer bottles along highways...or worse yet showing illegals how to vote.

A program can be set up to help people pay for college, but it would need the good work incentive to keep them working, not just a contract that they have to show up at a union hall and have their ticket punched.

Comment from Kevin on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T17:10:32Z

A resounding NO to any sort of military draft. Aside from my feelings regarding involuntary servitude, why give the meddlers in DC more 'cannon fodder' to throw around the world?

Wasn't it Madeline Albright who stated something along the lines of; "Why do we have such a big military if we don't use it?"

As for national service, why you already have it with the compulsory volunteers of the Obamacorps...

I give you HR1388 the "Give Act" to be 8 million strong.... joy!

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95674

Comment from Josh on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T17:04:52Z

However, you do make a good point about mech's who just want to be mech's. I see no reason why you can't have a mech who's above an E-5. That seems silly to me. I think a better approach would be to expand the definition of allowable ranks for positions, rather than to eliminate someone for a position just because they're being promoted. As you said, not everyone wants to become a pencil pusher, but wants to stay in the service.

If the Army had retained the earlier system of enlisted ranks with parallel Sergeant [command] and Specialist [non-command] ranks all the way up through the pay grades, this would all be taken care of. I don't see why you can't have an enlisted man with 20 years of experience wrenching helicopters at the same pay grade as an enlisted man with 20 years of experience leading other enlisted men.

Comment from Beth on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T16:49:36Z

I'm totally against forced national service - AKA the Draft.

TOTALLY

TOTALLY

TOTALLY

It ain't service if you don't have a choice, it's more like being a slave to whichever political party is in power at the moment.

The volunteer military works very well.
A draft is a reason to cut the pay of those who are in the military. BIG CUTS. I guarantee!

Comment from Josh on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T16:33:05Z

That said, I truly and deeply disagree with everyone (Josh, AFsis, fdcol63, and company) who likes the idea of some sort of required "national service." Why? Because it's Yet One More form of statist interference with the citizen's life. You think community service is a good idea? Great; they're your kids, teach them that. Don't depend on the local high schools for that. You think "national services" would teach people to value their voting rights, or our form of society? Maybe, although I suspect that most folks will value the chance to finish their obligation as quickly as possible, which is why they didn't get voluntarily get involved in the first place.

No no no no no no no (did that cover all your points?)

I vehemenently detest any sort of required service, be it at the national level or the elementary school level or anywhere in between. If it's required, then it's just temporary slavery. What I said I wanted was, in the true capitalist spirit, that people be given the opportunity to earn something of value by giving something of value. Political power, available to sale for anybody willing to cough up the price, that price being service to the nation they want to influence.

And, while delivering Meals on Wheels is certainly admirable, it's not really what I was thinking of. I'm really thinking of civilian military support, civil defense infrastructure, public safety, etc.

Comment from AFSister on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T16:30:37Z

Bill-
I know you didn't say they shouldn't be allowed to advance- that was actually my point also. That the current system allows people to move up in rank, but if you change it too drastically, we could end up with people who want to advance, but can't, because people above them won't move on.

However, you do make a good point about mech's who just want to be mech's. I see no reason why you can't have a mech who's above an E-5. That seems silly to me. I think a better approach would be to expand the definition of allowable ranks for positions, rather than to eliminate someone for a position just because they're being promoted. As you said, not everyone wants to become a pencil pusher, but wants to stay in the service.

Comment from Casey on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T15:57:57Z

Bill, I've believed for a long time that the Air Force was redundant, and that we should have handed Tactical back to the Army (the Air Force keeps trying to get rid of the Hog anyway), instituted a separate Logistics Command, and maybe an AF air superiority sliver.

Your post goes a long way in explaining why (aside from inertia) that hasn't happened. Thank you.

That aside -at the risk of sounding dumb- it still occurs to me that there is quite a bit of logistical redundancy. Why not return the Air Force to its parent organization, and re-create the Army Air Force; a wholly-owned subsidiary of Army, Inc.? That's how the Marines work. They are (relatively) tactically independent from the Navy, yet use Navy supply and support facilities. The AAF could use the Army supply and support system (in fact, they would be the system), and we could avoid the "ground game vs. deep game" arguments seen now.

And while we're at it, why not lose the requirement that all pilots must be officers? Y'all Warrant aviators seem to have worked out well. :)

That said, I truly and deeply disagree with everyone (Josh, AFsis, fdcol63, and company) who likes the idea of some sort of required "national service." Why? Because it's Yet One More form of statist interference with the citizen's life. You think community service is a good idea? Great; they're your kids, teach them that. Don't depend on the local high schools for that. You think "national services" would teach people to value their voting rights, or our form of society? Maybe, although I suspect that most folks will value the chance to finish their obligation as quickly as possible, which is why they didn't get voluntarily get involved in the first place.

Then there's the question of: just what constitutes "service?" Sure, helping the local homeless or old folks sounds nice, but what about "community organizers," Code Pink, or ACORN? You think no one will argue that constitutes "service" as well (which is why I've been using the quotes)? You think that people might actually agree with that?

Then there's the possibility that the obligation interferes with the citizens' plans; should a high school grad be forced into national service instead of getting a job to pay for college? What about physical disabilities? Does anyone think there won't be deferments for those with really, really good reasons to avoid service? And won't that open up a new can of worms?

And -since we're talking about indoctrination anyway- who says the Feds won't come up with another form of the gender-race-sexual orientation-ethnic-age-whatever diversity bilge so popular with colleges and bureaucrats these days? And that you have to pass these courses to fulfill your obligation? After all, we have to straighten these people out and make them better citizens, right? Who defines "better?"

Bottom line: any sort of government-induced obligation is statist interference. Just because one likes this interference, as opposed to (say) the prohibition of cigarettes, fast food, or gas guzzlers, or the enforced requirement of buying an electric car or recycling your trash is irrelevant; it's still the Feds telling people how they should think or behave. This position is morally the same as those who have excellent reasons (just ask 'em) why guns should be strongly controlled; it's good for society. Just like National Service.

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T15:16:55Z

I don't know that I agree with your agreement here, Bill. Another op-ed on this article points out that if we don't get rid of some of the auld pharts, the young pharts won't ever have the opportunity to advance. And if you don't advance, you probably won't stay. No one joins the Army with the hope of retiring 20 (or more) years later as an E-6 or lower.

I didn't say people shouldn't be allowed to advance, Twin -- I said they shouldn't be *forced* to do it. I know excellent helicopter mechanics who just wanted to be helicopter mechanics, even though the highest rank they could hold was E-5. Several of them got out rather than have a promotion forced on them, because they didn't *want* to move up and off the hangar floor. I doubt they'd have stayed for twenty in any case, but they would have stayed for ten in the slots they occupied.

Comment from Nicholas on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T14:59:16Z

Reminded me all too much of Canada's Paul Hellyer (Pierre Trudeau's Minister of National Defence) who amalgamated Canada's separate services in the Canadian Armed Forces. I've also written a brief WTF on the op-ed (bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/005391.html)

Comment from BillT on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T14:34:59Z

Cricket -- That was part of the incongruity that first struck me -- that someone who had evidently been around in the real world could suddenly succumb to the Ivory Tower Syndrome.

Kane couldn't possibly be ignorant of the fact that Obama campaigned on a promise to cut the Defense budget by 25% and that Gates has been reducing and eliminating programs, yet he appeals to them that the time is now ripe for both an increase in the size of the military *and* for major spending on modernization -- and justifies it by the size and depth of the fiscal hole the Administration has just dug...

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T14:33:31Z

Josh,

I agree completely with your Heinleinian idea. The franchise should be gained through some kind of post-secondary national service, not necessarily military. Could be, as you said, any kind of public service like candy-striping, delivering Meals On Wheels to the elderly and infirm, community service like picking up trash on highways, mentoring in Big Brother/Big Sister programs, etc. .... anything that exposes people after high school to "the real world" and their communities.

This would allow them to better appreciate the benefits of the society in which they live, and would allow them to better understand their responsibilities to society and to their fellow citizens.

Hopefully, this process would lead them to better appreciate the power and the responsibility of their vote, and would hopefully lead to better informed and educated decisions about whom they elect to public office.

No one truly appreciates something that is just given to them.

Comment from wolfwalker on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T14:32:40Z

Nice rant, Bill. One small addition, regarding this:

Just figuring out what to do with all those surplus Air Force Bases will become a logistical – and political – nightmare.

An economic nightmare too. I spent several years working for defense contractors at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. That base and the people -- military and civilian -- who work there probably account for about ten percent of the Greater Dayton area's economy, directly and indirectly. Take it away and ...?

Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T14:25:30Z

The real goal of today's liberals is to eliminate ALL of the United States' military capability. It won't be needed when America and all the other nation-states have "progressed" into the utopian, global, one-world governmental system under the UN.

Comment from AFSister on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T14:21:40Z

Stimson greatly *expanded* and diversified the Armed Forces, and was a firm believer in the dictum that being thoroughly prepared for war was the surest way to ensure peace. He would have hung a “Peace Through Superior Firepower” poster behind his desk.

That's my favorite part of your reply, Bill. I lust LOVE it when so-called "journalists" use examples that prove their point WRONG. dip$hit.

Second, the archaic “up or out” military promotion system should be scrapped in favor of a plan that treats service members as real assets.

I don't know that I agree with your agreement here, Bill. Another op-ed on this article points out that if we don't get rid of some of the auld pharts, the young pharts won't ever have the opportunity to advance. And if you don't advance, you probably won't stay. No one joins the Army with the hope of retiring 20 (or more) years later as an E-6 or lower.

Third, the United States needs a national service program for all young men and women

On this point, I agree with him.. but I disagree that the service has to be military in nature. There are so many people out there with NO sense of volunteerism, or the national pride that helping out brings. This is something that has to be "indoctrinated" at a younger age- it's exactly why many high schools now have a community service requirement to graduate. There's no better way to promote volunteerism than to actually get involved in a project. And at no point would I approve of people being "appointed" to certain projects or military service, as Kane later suggests. This will only lead to disgruntled and anti-empathetic workers- the exact opposite of what a national service project should accomplish.

"Epic Fail" on his failure to truly recognize the necessity of the USAF and their role in the current wars is spot on. Dork.

And this... is the perfect ending for your commentary:
At this moment, I don’t see that the C-in-C has given any indication he’s capable of making a decision of that magnitude. He is presently out of his political and intellectual depth with regards to anything defense-related, with no sign that he even bothered to put on a Coast Guard-approved PFD…

I couldn't agree more.

Comment from Josh on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T14:06:54Z

I've never believed in universal national service...at least not for America (Israel, for example, has a much better argument for it).

Furthermore, developing a huge make-work bureaucracy is just normal liberal borderline-communist fantasy.

On the other hand, I think you could make a good argument for something like Robert Heinlein proposed...earning the rights to vote and hold political office through national [not necessarily military] service. What would the non-military service involve? I think it could be jobs that already exist today, without any changes or additional federal government bureacracy. Lots of non-military jobs that exist today, be they civilian support jobs that work directly with the military, or something as simple as a volunteer firefighter, might be considered as legitimate to qualify.

As for eliminating the Air Force, that's just stupid.

Comment from Cricket on 2009-04-22

2009-04-22T13:40:45Z

Bill, there is one more reason why the proposals wouldn't work. Read where he is writing from. Harvard University's Kennedy's School of Government. Need I say more? I read the article, shredded it in my mind as cage liner for guinea pigs and then when I read the byline, said 'No wonder it looked funny, smelled funny and acted funny.'

Was I being *too* judgmental?