America's Army - book

America’s Army: Making the All-Volunteer Force, Beth Bailey (Harvard University Press, 2009).

Beth Bailey is a Professor of History at Temple University. This book is, I think, good example of what a competent historian can do with a topic of this kind.

I confess I had never thought seriously about the change from the draft to a Volunteer Army, other than to initially believe I didn’t think it was a good idea. This was partly because I was out of the country during much of the serious controversy, and partly because I just didn’t really think much about it. I had no idea how complicated, complex, difficult, and far-reaching a job it was to make this switch. First, there were moral problems involving the basic obligations of citizenship, then there was race, and after that the problems of gender, and after that the practical problems of just how to go about bringing such monumental changes, and then even after that, questions about what skills were really necessary to serve in a modern army. That this was accomplished at all I find almost miraculous.

I did not understand that the issue of changing to an all-volunteer army came about because of the combination of Richard Nixon’s opportunism and the Chicago School of Economics. Nixon understood the disenchantment with Vietnam and the draft, and realized that doing away with the latter would be an astute political achievement. The argument for doing so quickly became one of the market place. It would be economically sensible (that is, cheaper) to have an all-volunteer army than to continue the draft. Furthermore, because of modern technology and the probabilities of the “wars” of the future, it was obvious that the army would require soldiers with more education than previously, and with more intelligence than previously. There was a fear that an all-volunteer force would inevitably consist of Blacks lacking these qualities, along with the poor and less educated. The problem became one of how to recruit the kinds of individuals the modern all-volunteer army would want. It was quickly decided that in order to achieve this goal it would be necessary to raise the pay of soldiers, and also to do away with some of the more onerous and unpleasant aspects of army life, such things as KP, unnecessary “policing” of the area picking up trash, polishing the interior of belt buckles, to say nothing of the bullying of drill sergeants, and so on. But of course this new image of army life had to be sold to recruits and so became a marriage of Madison Avenue and the Army. It would be left to the marketplace.

Much of this book is a record of just how the Army (with the help of the advertising industry) went about this change. It is actually quite fascinating to see how the ads changed with changing perceptions of young people and their values, and how they changed over time from the 60’s to the 70’s to the 80’s and 90’s and to the present time. Not the least of the problems had to do with gender and what to do with female enlistees. There was, of course, great resistance to having female soldiers at all, and then, when it became obvious there would have to be such soldiers (as the quotas could not be met otherwise), what, exactly would they be required (or allowed) to do. Here again technology entered into the equation. As women were not perceived to be as physically capable as men, and therefore not as able to be infantry troops or engage in hand-to-hand combat, how could they be allowed to perform the same MOS’s (Military occupational specialties) as men. If they couldn’t be ordinary foot soldiers why could they not fly fighter planes or drop bombs that did not require basic physical strength?

I believe it is true, as Bailey suggests, that the Army was actually far ahead of American culture in general, when it came to working out these problems of race and gender. I think it is pretty much the case that race is no longer much of a problem in our military, but gender differences still are working themselves out. And now, of course, there is a renewed emphasis on gays in the military (but it, too, I am sure, will soon be a forgotten issue).

I was initially opposed to an all-volunteer force because I feared it might easily have more loyalty to those who paid it than to the country or constitution (as in the case of that nitwit graduate of one of the right-wing law schools who admitted she had vowed loyalty to George W. Bush, apparently even unaware of how totally inappropriate that was). Now I don’t believe this need be a problem as long as our volunteers are made to swear an oath to the constitution and understand where their loyalties must lie. By far the most serious problem is with the mercenary troops that have been more and more a part of our military adventures around the world, a problem that is just now receiving the serious attention it deserves. Bailey does not deal with this at all, but it is totally unfair to criticize someone for not writing about something she was not writing about. America’s Army is a fine and detailed account of how it is we arrived at an all-volunteer army and makes you appreciate just how almost impossibly difficult and cleverly this transition was achieved.

I am still not completely convinced that an all-volunteer army is the best solution to national defense. The best solution is probably to have an all-volunteer cadre readily available for most defense problems, while at the same time having some form of national service whereby all young people are at least minimally prepared to serve in one capacity or another if necessary. The issue of national service, having to do with basic questions of citizenship, is far too controversial and complicated to be dealt with here (maybe later).