WASHINGTON — Any remaining doubts about whether our current
foreign policies are sustainable were demolished by the news that
the Army has missed its recruiting goals for the fourth straight
month. The Marine Corps has missed its goals for four out of the
past five months. The National Guard and Army Reserve have been
struggling with retention and recruiting problems for over a year.
If the Bush administration and Congress do not fundamentally
rethink their attitude toward the use of force abroad, then they
will wreck the finest military in the history of mankind.
The U.S. military remains a fearsome adversary, eminently
capable of defeating any force foolish enough to engage it on the
battlefield. Our special forces and intelligence personnel are
similarly able to hunt down shadowy terrorist groups outside of the
bounds of conventional war. Policing foreign countries is another
matter. These operations place a particularly onerous burden on our
troops, and they fall well outside the realm of national security.
As Condoleezza Rice noted in 2000: “Carrying out civil
administration and police functions is simply going to degrade the
American capability to do the things America has to do. We don’t
need to have the 82nd Airborne escorting kids to kindergarten.”
Indeed, we don’t. The American public’s reluctance to play the
world’s policeman reflects an accurate assessment of the high costs
and dubious benefits of such operations. Many now question the
presumption that we can increase our safety here in the United
States by stationing our military in foreign lands. As we are
learning in Iraq, and should have learned with earlier experiences
in the Balkans, peacekeeping is often a thankless task because it
engenders resentment among the very people we are trying to help.
These pressures are driving the current recruitment crisis.
Expanding the military is no solution. Since neither the Army
nor the Marines can meet the existing recruiting goals, even with
record high incentives, how would raising those recruiting goals —
which is what expanding the Army would mean — do anything to
address the fact that young people are increasingly skeptical of
signing up to support the current administration’s foreign
policy?
The Pentagon has experimented with various band-aids to cover
the recruiting wound. Fearing the effects of the Afghanistan and
Iraq deployments on the force, it began employing stop-loss orders
to prevent some military personnel from leaving the service when
their terms of enlistment expired. Other individuals who have
completed their service obligations have been returned to active
duty. These provisions are included in a service member’s contract
with the government, but have been invoked rarely since the
all-volunteer force was created in 1973. Some military officials
concede that their actions are “inconsistent with the fundamental
principles of voluntary service.”
Stop-loss orders, or other similar measures, can only postpone a
time of reckoning. The military cannot compel members to remain in
the service forever. Military spouses can opt out of the system by
divorce, and an alarming number have done so in the past few years.
Meanwhile, new potential recruits, and their parents and spouses,
are asking the inevitable question: “How long will I be expected to
serve?” Honest recruiters tell them the truth: “It depends.”
A draft would succeed in getting bodies into uniforms, but
conscription is morally reprehensible, strategically unsound, and
politically unthinkable. The generals and colonels, but especially
the junior officers and senior enlisted personnel who lead our
armed forces, know that the military is uniquely capable because it
is comprised of individuals who serve of their own free will.
The current crisis in manpower did not begin with the occupation
of Iraq, but it was made worse by it. The handover of security
responsibilities to the Iraqi government should continue, and the
Bush administration needs to make firm its pledge to reduce and
eliminate the military deployment in that country.
Going forward, if Americans undertake new military operations,
we should do so with a clear understanding of the costs and risks.
These costs and risks multiply if we leave our men and women in
uniform in foreign lands for indefinite periods of time.
For over a decade, we have asked more and more from our
soldiers. They have responded honorably. But they cannot be
everywhere, and they cannot do everything. And when their time is
up, we should not be surprised if they walk away. Neither should we
be surprised if fewer and fewer Americans step forward to take
their place. More troops is not the answer. A more judicious use of
these troops is.
