Home > The End Of The War

The End Of The War

by Open-Publishing - Saturday 26 November 2005
9 comments

Wars and conflicts International USA

by Robert B. Reich

The War in Iraq may end sooner rather than later - not because prominent congressmen or military experts say we should get out, and not because the American public is losing patience. It will end relatively soon because we can’t afford the price tag of recruiting enough soldiers to fight it.

Our soldiers comprise what’s called an "all-volunteer" army. But the job of soldiering is "voluntary" the same way any paid job is voluntary. You’re not forced to do it. You’re paid to do it. Since Richard Nixon ended the draft in 1973, most of the people who join the military do so because it’s the most attractive job available to them.

Some are motivated by patriotism, of course, but let’s not kid ourselves. People facing a choice between a job in the private sector that’s near home and safe, and one in the military that’s thousands of miles away and may not be safe, will choose to remain civilians - unless the military job pays more. And for any given age and level of education, it does.

When the economy is expanding and private-sector jobs are becoming more plentiful, as they are now, the Pentagon has to pay even more to attract additional recruits. That’s why the latest defense appropriations raises military pay 3.1 percent every year for the next five, considerably faster than civilian pay is expected to rise.

Cash isn’t the Pentagon’s only lure. The military is also offering signing bonuses up to $30,000 for jobs in high demand. You can get up to a $150,000 cash bonus for re-enlisting if you’re with the Special Forces. And all recruits are eligible for up to $50,000 to offset the costs of higher education and up to $65,000 to pay back college loans. Not to mention generous housing, child care, and health benefits.

But not even all this is enough.

According to new report just from Congress’s General Accountability Office, the Pentagon is falling far behind its targets for recruiting and re-enlisting soldiers for vital combat positions - including as few as a third of the Special Force soldiers and intelligence specialists it aimed for last year. All told, the military has failed to fully staff over 40 percent of its combat and non-combat specialities.

Why? According to military experts, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is scaring many potential recruits away. Even though only a portion of our 1.4 million active-duty personnel serve in a war zone or hardship area, the job of a soldier seems far more dangerous these days.

It’s the law of supply and demand. If we want more people to sign up, and stay signed up, we’ve got to pay them even more. But here’s the catch. Try paying them much more and we run into an incontrovertible obstacle called the federal budget deficit.

If you haven’t heard, the deficit is out of control. That’s why Congress and the White House are trying to put a cap on military spending, not increase it. The Pentagon is already scaling back or jettisoning major weapons systems that had been on the drawing boards. There’s no money left for substantially higher pay and benefits for the troops.

Don’t expect the White House and Congress to reinstate the draft. That would bring public hostility for the Iraqi War to the boiling point. So with no more money in the kitty to recruit all the Americans who needed to "volunteer" to continue to fight the war, what will happen? The war will come to an end.

Robert B. Reich, a professor at Brandeis University, is the author most recently of "Reason" (2004, Alfred A. Knopf). He was secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1123-25.htm

Forum posts

  • Thanks for the rational reasoning-kgb56

  • As much as I respect Dr. Reich, and while this piece has a logical layout. I believe he underestimates the blood lust that White America has for Muslims and Arabs.

    A shortage of personnel is not going to shut down the war in Iraq or the larger war on Islam. There are many venues in which the U.S. will manifest itself to conduct this.

    One thing that impress me is how the bulk of White America hates Arabs and Muslims — yet they themselves, when considering individuals, are a scared people. This piece again clearly reaffirms the data point.

    • WEll I might just addd while NEO-Cons and their backers might ’hate’ Moslems, don’t forget the Majority of Americans Don’t and they also want this War to End- ASAP. A current MINORITY (backed by dollars and lies and media whores) is the ONLY thing driving this war for Resources and Empire not the people. I suggest if the military wants to keep recruiting good honest intelligent recruits that they stay away from lying ChickenHawks who shout killing slogans from the sidelines never having set foot on a field of battle themselves and align themselves with those who want the military used only for DEFENSIVE purposes not wars for Imperialist conquest. Bring Em Home Now!!! — No Blood for Oil!!!

    • I would disagree with you that only some Americans hate Muslims (sic).

      I could suppose that your preception and classification of "hate" is different than mine. Let me attempt to define (describe) of what I see and mean by the "hate" that Americans have for Muslims and Arabs. Let us consider a small minority, say 7% (quite arbitary, but the sake of argument), would "hate" enough to cause some physical harm to a Muslim, for example, for wearing the head scarf. Let us say that is the "core" group. Surrounding this would be a concentric ring; in this arena a larger goup would populate it. Say, 23%. Not much larger than the "core" group. This first ring population would not really cause any bodily harm but certainly would disapprove to varying degrees the Muslims’ head scarf wearing. Outside of the knowledge of the scarf wearer, they would sympathize with the "core" group. Some from this group may even go so far as approving the physical attention that the "core" group would deliver. Others many simply ridicule the scarf wearer. Others may use harsher terms.

      Outside of this "first ring" would be another ring with a population that yet sympathises with the first ring group but may contain individules less approving of physically removing the head scarf. Say that this second ring has 30% of the population (not included in the first two groupings).

      So far, we are considering 50% of the population in this case argument. That is a significant portion of the population that has "hate" for the scarf wearer. Consider for a moment.

      Now, for the third concentric ring, let us say, the individules that populate it will still disapprove the scarf wearing and would take some action other than direct. Say, at work, they would file a complaint or let it be a surpervisor and s/he would make some attempt to address this issue. (Now understand, there are many, many rules where it would be appropriate and many other instances where it would not matter at all as the scarf wearing would not impede work or safety or security.) Or individuals in this grouping may make disparaging remarks to cause some mental discomfort or such.

      The third ring would be the largest, let us say, with another 40% of the population not considered under the previous groups.

      Thus far, we have considered 90% of the population and they, to some degree, are exbihiting a "hate" of the scarf wearer.

      The last 10% of the population could some say hold no opinion on the matter that they express and thus not truly counted nor truly discounted.

      In this regard, I would say that many, many more Americans have this "hate" for Muslims and Arabs than what you might consider "hate".

      At the same time I do not want to say that this is a simple issue with clearly delimited lines. There may be movement of thought across these groupings across time and events (both, such as personal contact and events occuring in France, or Iran, for example.)

      To simply think that only a "few" Americans "hate" Muslims and/or Arabs is quite incorrect, IMHO. It is not simply the case that a few will go out and lynch and thus be concluded that only these individules "hate". Certainly, some parallels can be drawn between those who lynched Blacks and those who "hated" Blacks. Or in today’s world, — how many people who at a gathering where there are no Jews or Blacks would simply make very desparaging remarks about them?

      To a lesser extent the above example can hold true for being Polish — how often the word "Pollack" is used with negative imagry?

      It is rather a complex matrix to explain and I am sure I am doing justice in this small post — but I hope the reader captures the meaning and flavor of what I’ve said.

    • You said" let us consider a small minority, say 7% (quite arbitary, but the sake of arguement), would "hate" enough to cause some physical harm to a muslim, for example, for wearing the head scarf."

      We’ll I guess that’s possible but I might equally suggest to you that perhaps say 7% (or 70% as it now seems) might cause harm to an American or Christian because they display some sign someone might somehow find offensive. Predjudice is everywhere, EVERYBODY I think feels it to one degree or another and in some ways it is UNAVOIDABLE. The question is what do we do in ACTIONS when we are feeling this do we continue to believe ’innocent until proven guilty’ or do we persecute without evidence?

      Personally as an American I could care LESS what anyone wears on their head, they can wear a hat, an animal skin, feathers, a box, Christmas lights, a lampshade, or perhaps their underware for all I care, WHY exactly would I "hate" them for wearing a head scarf on their head> i don’t quite get it> But then that’s OK. I don’t claim to understand ALOT of primate behavior (hate) that is paracticed by SOME other Americans and perhaps elsewhere and am fortunate I can still live my life as a FREE American (for awhile longer) in this GREAT REPUBLIC paid for in BLOOD by my own ancestors and their Patriot Friends and neighbors. Any OTHER American has to speak for themselves.

      LIve FREE or DIE!

  • Neo cons are cowards. They only live their lousy life to preach, beat their women and abuse children. They will never sign up. They talk people who are dumber then themselves (hard to believe, but they exist) into service for their country. har har - patriot = idiot

  • you people who say americans hate muslims are freaks. talk to anyone , the only people americans hate are the bush administration and we are ready to take justice into our hands

    • Attaboy! It is about time that you Americans do something about your murderous "leaders".

    • Has anyone noticed that not all Muslims are terrorists, but that all terrorists are Muslim.

      Bush ain’t a terrorist either, he’s just a puppet. Rumsfeld’s.