Richard Nixon ended the US conscription program in 1973 and we’ve had a large professional volunteer standing Army since then. When the old Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, Jimmy Carter reinstated draft registration because he had made military service so unattractive it became clear that conscription would be the only way that the US could face a threat from our enemies. The eighties came and so did Ronald Reagan who gave the military sufficient pay raises so we could make ends meet, and provide for our families without riding the food stamp rolls. He also spent money on upgrading our equipment and our weapons which defeated the weapons of the Soviet Union in Iraq in 1991.<\/p>\n
After three decades of supportive administrations that saw the value of a well-compensated, well-trained and well-equipped professional force, the current administration has decided to buck that trend by reducing pay raises below the rate of inflation. Bonuses for retaining the experienced trained junior leaders are becoming rare. They’re cutting training funds and opportunities as well as cutting proven weapons systems in favor of politically advantageous weapons instead.<\/p>\n
Restrictive policies are driving those enlisted ranks to the private sector. The Pentagon thinks that with fewer numbers in the active force, they can fight our enemies on the cheap with Reserve and National Guard troops – but those units are encountering the same retention problems as the active units.<\/p>\n
So, we still have the draft with which we can force military-aged youngsters into the service. Well, Jimmy Carter, before he reinstated draft registration, gave amnesty to the draft dodgers of the Vietnam years, insuring that our system of conscription would never work again.<\/p>\n
Well, surely if we faced an invasion from a foreign enemy, draftees would patriotically report for service, right? Well, it seems that the Ukrainians are facing a foreign invasion so they reconstituted their conscription system. So how’s that working for them? According to Washington Post<\/a>, it isn’t;<\/p>\n \u201cWe do have some problems in the mobilization,\u201d acknowledged military spokesman Vladislav Seleznev, when asked about cases like Igor\u2019s. \u201cThat\u2019s why we are trying to strike a balance: From one side, the government provides benefits to those defending the country; from the other, there are very harsh criminal penalties for draft dodgers.\u201d<\/p>\n […]<\/p>\n \u201cI would rather sit in prison for three years \u2014 and be fed and secure \u2014 than serve,\u201d said Andrey, 26, a metal plant worker who was drafted in March. \u201cAfter a whole year of this government, we still have to work for two days to buy a loaf of bread. I don\u2019t want to go fight for that kind of government.\u201d<\/p>\n Andrey is from Slovyansk, an eastern Ukrainian city that came under heavy assault last summer, with troops eventually wresting the city from pro-Russian rebels. But the local population\u2019s sympathies are still divided, and of the approximately 40 people Andrey knows who recently received draft orders, he says only one is actually responding.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I’m thinking that, given the state of the culture in this country these days, the current generation of military-aged men would rather sit in prison watching cable TV and playing video games than serve, similar to the Ukrainian example provided. Especially if they think that when better men than them win the war, they’re going to be pardoned by the next Jimmy Carter.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"