Rethinking our all-volunteer force

Back in 2005 and 2006, I had a brief undistinguished career as a commentator on NPR’s “All Things Considered.” One of the commentaries I did was on the changing character of our Armed Forces. The backdrop was the war in Iraq, which at the time had ground down to a protracted insurgency. Here, in part, is what I said:

“President Bush's approval rating may be extremely low at the moment, but he can claim at least one consolation. The military still likes him. The photo ops and speeches Bush stages in front of military audiences are obviously calculated to be pep rallies in support of the war. But the troops really don't seem to mind. The president can count on military audiences to cheer and clap and smile on all such occasions.

Today's all-volunteer force [that of 2006] seems much more attuned to the Bush administration's neo-conservative agenda than the military of my day would have been. There is the obvious appeal. The military has never been a polite debating society. Bush's stubborn refusal to back down evokes the popular stereotype of the tough and taciturn military commander whose motto is ‘lead, follow or get out of the way.'

When I enlisted in 1965, at the height of the Cold War draft, I never would have expected to find officers and career noncommissioned officers so open about their fundamentalist religious convictions. Nor could I have envisioned a time when it would be necessary to crack down on proselytizing at the Air Force Academy. And I certainly could not have imagined hearing more than one officer, even in private, express admiration for the way the Chinese dealt with their protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989.”

Our all-volunteer force, I noted, was hardening along professional lines. It was becoming more insular in its attitudes and values than the citizen soldiery we used to rely on. I said only time would tell if the inclusion of National Guard and reserve units would have the same leavening influence the draft once had. And I closed by reminding listeners the American military is supposed to remain apolitical. A point I didn’t make, but should have: Hardened professional soldiers have a tendency to feel superior to the self-indulgent civilians they serve. They also tend to believe they know better than the weak-willed, indecisive politicians they answer to.

That was then. These days, I’m even more concerned.

I never expected the Marine Corps to have to discharge 169 Marines for refusing to be vaccinated against COVID.

I never expected a high-ranking Army officer to speak in favor of a military coup in America. But retired lieutenant general Michael Flynn did at a QAnon gathering in May of 2022.

I never expected to see a female soldier in uniform included in the TV coverage of the January 6 attack on the Capitol. But I did.

According to the nationally syndicated columnist Clarence Page, writing in the Chicago Tribune, as of December 2021 81 former or current service members had been charged with taking part in that attack. Each of them once swore an oath “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Fortunately, the Pentagon does now seem to be doing all in its power to hold servicemen and women to that oath and to keep our military from becoming a breeding ground for domestic terrorism.

Such is the focus of an important AP article that ran in the Sun on January 16. It was by AP reporter Gary Fields and was titled “U.S. military academies focus on loyalty to the Constitution.” According to Fields, the Department of Defense now suspects “dozens of military members of extremist activities, including plotting to overthrow the government.”

The main thrust of the article is how our service academies are going to some lengths to ensure future officers understand our Constitution and how it governs the civil-military relation in America. Fields reports in particular on the efforts of West Point Maj. Joe Amaroso who teaches a course in American politics. His pointed reminder to cadets is that their loyalty must be to the Constitution and not to a “particular person or personality.” Is there any doubt whom the major might have in mind?

This worry, Fields reminds us, is certainly warranted. Trump has hinted at invoking the insurrection act to quell protests and maintain law and order in Democratic cities. And he once referred to the generals who served in his administration as “my generals.” Just a thoughtless figure of speech or a banana-republic generalissimo mindset? I would bet on the latter.

I closed that 2006 NPR commentary with a reminder that our military is meant to be apolitical. It exists to fight wars and not to advance anyone’s domestic political agenda. The danger is that today’s right-leaning military may just be amenable to advancing Trump’s agenda.

Let’s face it. Our all-volunteer force was one of the worst outcomes of our Vietnam War. Aside from being insular, it’s expensive and unsustainable. We can’t recruit enough young people to fill the ranks. It just may be time to go back to the future. The draft is still on the books.

An afterword. Interested in hearing my dulcet delivery of that NPR commentary? It’s still online--https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5157068

Contact Ed Palm at majorpalm@gmail.com.

This article originally appeared on Kitsap Sun: Drafting a military to remain apolitical and truly reflect America