My theory: NO DRAFT even if * wins

[gmoney]

The one thing * may be telling the truth about is no draft (apart from the medical services draft). I think that the future of the military is an expansion of the private military that we're already seeing.

Non-combat jobs formerly held by troops such as mess, housing, laundry, maintenance, administration, etc. are being shifted to private contractors, freeing the shrinking number of actual soldiers for the dangerous stuff (including, ironically, protecting the civilian contractors). There is much more money to be made in the private sector by supplying a civilian to drive a truck than to just draft some kid. Say a PFC earns $30K a year... the private truck driver is earning $60K, and Halliburton is charging the US $120K fot that guy. That's $60K profit vs. $0 profit for the private sector, even if it's the same kid doing the same job.

Plus with troops, there's the long term commitment of Veterans benefits, medical, GI Bill, retirement, etc. that * is trying to cut. With a civilian contract employee, there's no benefits, no retirement, maybe just a little life insurance on top of the cash payoff.

Of course, driving the economy into the tank will ensure ENOUGH young people (and older people) have to resort to joining the military or becoming a CACI contract employee because it will be about the only job available, and the money will look damn good. If the economy sucks bad enough, the draft is unnecessary.

Also, this explains the medical services draft -- about the ONLY growth field in the civilian world, it's cost prohibitive to try and hire these people away from safe private sector medical jobs to go work in the Iraq medical corps, handling combat wounds while under fire. So, we have to draft these poor schmucks.

This would also explain Rummy's big rush to close bases in the US. Most jobs at US bases can be handled by civilians, so let's pay CACI three times as much as an enlisted guy would cost, and push all those troops from the closed US bases into combat posts. Same with Europe, Japan, South Vietnam...

Then there's the added benefit of contract troops being able to operate outside the rules of military conduct... refer to Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc.

So, there's my theory... comments? Critiques?

[NMDemDist2]

1. the only problem is when you outsource the supply lines

the troops don't get supplies when the going get tough

there are widespread complaints of lack of food, water, fuel and ammo on the front lines because the contractors won't go into harms way

[gmoney]

5. I'm not saying it's a GOOD plan...

...just that I suspect it's *'s plan. The plan that puts the most public money into the pockets of the Military Industrial Complex. The plan that proves Ike and Smedley Butler to be right in their warnings.

[Maple]

2. Ummm isn't that how

the Roman army crashed and burned?

[The Traveler]

3. I think your theory is sound

And I think that is s strategic goal of these fascist bastards ... drifting towards a system wherein it is acceptable for corporations to directly control military assets and weapons. This is beginning to resemble some of the most disturbing themes of cyber-punk.

[Demonaut]

9. and William Gibson would agree

[Vickers]

4. Yup, I've had similar thoughts

The long-term cost of a soldier is pretty high.

With a regular GI, there is no way for the Bushies and others to shift OUR money to THEIR Halliburtonesque friends.

[alfredo]

6. Privatization will not make up for the

shortfall in enlistment and the shrinking number of people re-uping.

[wildflower]

7. Yes, military may be the only jobs left...

So everyone will be employed there...which equals no draft.

Sorry, temporarily on a pessimistic train of thought.

-wildflower

[necso]

8. No.

There will be a draft (if Bush is elected). Here are just a few reasons why mercs won't do:

1) They are too expensive. While the cost of today's military is high, drafting some 19 year old, training him as combat infantry for a few weeks, then shipping his butt out with an old M-16 (and three bullets) is a lot cheaper. And exactly what veteran's benefits do you think that these draftees are actually going to get (and when will these have to be paid for)? It could also be possible to set draftees' pay lower than "volunteer" pay, and reserve choice specialist roles (business majors need not apply) for these "volunteers" -- one would be able to pick and choose from a great number of "eager volunteers" in this case, I imagine (even with equal pay).

2) There are many roles in the military just unsuitable for mercs because of the specialist nature or the need for tight integration of these roles into the "system".

3) Mercs are contract employees and there are situations where no amount of money would prove an adequate lure (for most). Soldiers you can just order to go -- and as a rule they will go.

4) There is considerable unhappiness in the military with the current degree of privatization. Soldiers (my most general term for individuals in the military) might not be able to be counted on to support further privatization. And at some point, there is always a chance that soldiers might express their opinions in a somewhat more forceful manner.

5) There are a great number of good Officers in the military who actually care about doing the smart (and the right) thing for the nation and its military. And, yes, it is true that even good Officers tend to think in terms of military solutions -- but that is what (good) civilian command and control is for (in part -- providing for the military's needs is another of many civilian duties).

6) There is no possible way that we can go to some "Light Army" bs, not when tangling with Iran, Syria, North Korea and who-knows-what is on the table (a great deal of infantry will be called for, however). Even doing "sweeps" (or whatever) in lightly defended cities (Fallujah is not Stalingrad, defended house by house, block by block, and rubble pile by rubble pile by the Red Army) calls for heavy weapons, unless heavy casualties (our casualties) are acceptable. Mercs are (in modern terms, times and generally) light forces. They are not suitable for invading a nation with a real military or doing other "heavy lifting".

Now this is not to say that plenty of money won't be squandered on contractors -- it will. And this is not to say that the Pentagon civilian command isn't comprised of complete idiots -- it is. But the military isn't about to let anybody destroy it. And while the military isn't crazy about draftees, (who can to be rather troublesome), the military (in general -- there are always a few who will go along with anything in order to serve their own selfish interests) will not let themselves be handed an old sock full of crap -- and call it a Christmas stocking full of goodies.

[Solon]

10. Actually I think both will happen...

Pretty simple if you think about it, have PMC's keep "Law and Order" domestically when unrest would rise because of a Draft. While at the same time draft all the kids that can tote a gun to keep them busy while their parents and children are being stomped into the ground by corporate armies.

[Sugarbleus]

11. I said something similar recently...

During the last debate (I think it was the last one)Bush kept talking about "new weaponry" and "speicalized" troops to do "specific" things.

The thought that came to mind is that he might draft "speicalists" in one thing or another, re train troops for that "Speeeecial" operation, then USE HIS MILITARY INVESTORS new WEAPONS to blow the bejesus out of a country!

There IS a return to investors on "new weaponry" while a soldier is a loss in terms of return; feasibly, a soldier would have to be supported for a lifetime........WITH NO RETURN, on dollars spent, to any investor/power elite among Bushco's cronies......... Just a thought I had.