[Chicago Tribune] Feel that Draft?

[tigermission1]

Does anyone else share my sentiment that compulsory service in the military (or even civil service) should be required of all young Americans? I do.



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0506080018jun08,1,2095830.story

Feel that draft?

By Charles Moskos
Published June 8, 2005

Recruitment for the U.S. Army and Marine Corps is on the brink of disaster. Indeed, along with combat, recruiting duty is now considered the worst mission in the military. Although we are in a global war against terrorism, the American citizenry is not being asked for any sacrifice. In the last election, both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) were united in their refusal to consider a return to conscription. "Patriotism-lite" is the order of the day.

But truth to tell, a draft for the 21st Century is the only answer to our national security needs. Such a draft would have three tiers of youth service, with 18-month tours of duty for citizens ages 18 to 25. The first tier would be modeled after a standard military draft. The second tier would be for homeland security, such as guarding our borders, ports, nuclear installations and chemical plants. Included in this category would be police officers, firefighters, air marshals and disaster medical technicians. The third tier would be for civilian national service, such as the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, Habitat for Humanity, Teach for America, assistance for the elderly and infirm, environmental work and the like. Women should be draft-eligible for the latter two categories and, of course, can volunteer for military service as now.

In return, all draftees, as well as voluntary servers, would receive generous financial aid for college and graduate school modeled after the GI Bill of World War II. Non-servers would be ineligible for federal student aid. Today more than $20 billion annually in federal funds is given to students who do not serve their country. We have created a GI Bill of Rights without the "GI."

Any conscription system must start at the top of the social ladder to have widespread public acceptance. During World War II and the Cold War, privileged youths were conscripted at a higher rate than youths from the lower socio-economic levels. (My draftee contemporary was Elvis Presley!) This was not true in the Vietnam War draft or in today's all-volunteer force. That only a handful of those in Congress have children in the military speaks directly to the inequity of military service today.

Three major arguments are raised against conscription. These are given below with rejoinders.

1. Short enlistments would increase demands on the training base. Let us remember that almost one-third of our service entrants now fail to complete their initial enlistments. This contrasts with a 10 percent dropout rate for draftees in the Cold War. Completion of an enlistment term is strongly correlated with higher education. It's much better to have a soldier serve a short draft tour honorably than be prematurely discharged. Conscription would both reduce personnel turnover and counter shortfalls in end strength.

2. The modern military requires highly technical skills that cannot be met by short-termers. Precisely. Higher compensation should be aimed at those whose skills require extended training and experience. In the draft era, the pay ratio between a senior non-commissioned officer and a private was six to one; today it is three to one. We now have overpaid recruits and underpaid sergeants.

3. Volunteers make better soldiers than those who are conscripted to serve. Item: in World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, draftees had lower desertion and AWOL rates than volunteers. Item: Surveys of veterans find that draftees have a more favorable opinion of their military experience than do volunteers.

In brief, draftees could readily fill the multitude of jobs that require only a short formal training period or even just on-the-job training. It is well documented that higher-quality recruits have the skills and motivation to learn quickly a wide variety of military jobs. Draftees would be ideally suited for duties on peacekeeping missions such as in Bosnia, Kosovo and the Sinai. Better educated and more mature draftees would also be ideal for guard duty in military prisons.

Without conscription, what will happen? We will see, as is already happening, a lowering of military entrance standards. And, as is already occurring, there will be an exponential increase in enlistment bonuses. And we can expect new policies to recruit non-Americans into our armed forces, though we will probably call such a force a Freedom Legion rather than a Foreign Legion.

There is also a financial argument for conscription. Recruits in the all-volunteer force are three times more costly--in constant dollars--than draftees. The erosion of the citizen soldier has made for a career force that's top-heavy. The Pentagon now owes its soldiers $654 billion in future retirement benefits that it cannot pay.

Above all, a compulsory national service program would give our youth--and future leaders--a shaping civic experience. The revival of the citizen soldier can only be to the advantage of the armed services and the nation.

----------

Charles Moskos, a former draftee, is professor emeritus at Northwestern University. He is the author of "A Call to Civic Service" and "The Military: More Than Just a Job."

Copyright © 2005, Chicago Tribune

[Saint Louis]

The White House and Congress do not want conscription again because then they would once again be held accountable by the people for sending American soldiers into harms way. With a volunteer force, I believe the powers in Washington face less criticism from the American people over troop deployments. Bring back the draft and watch us pull out of Iraq. I know that if I was a parent with high school age children and the draft was reinstituted, my voice of opposition to the war in Iraq would become much more vocal. I am personally against GWB's crusade in Iraq and have been since the beginning. I voted against him in 2000 and 2004, but I am willing to go with the "will" of the people for now. If the draft comes back, then I am all for mass demonstrations, civil disobedience and out right revolution to bring down the corrupt powers that now rule Washington, whether Democrat or Republican. I would rather spend the money we are spending on the war on revamping our economy to be less dependent on Middle East oil. Then maybe we wouldn’t have to go off fighting the oil crusades.

[TMac640]

you ain't sending me anywhere lol

[111chase111]

Does anyone else share my sentiment that compulsory service in the military (or even civil service) should be required of all young Americans? I do.

I like the idea of compulsory military service for all young Americans. Instilling a little discipline in people would probably reduce the crime rate and lead to better employees, etc..

However, I don't think it will happen.

[Deckard]

As I've said before, a draft would be a disaster for our professional military and the country. I am completely against it. That it is even being discussed points to just how mad Bush was to go to war without the country in clear and present danger, and how lied to and deluded by the leadership of the Republican Party, and their fellow extremist friends, the voters were who kept their country on the path that continued the madness of the Bush Presidency last November.

I protested against the war and the draft in the 60's, and I will not see my children exposed to it... not by a government run by the fools currently in power, and not for a war that should never have occured when it did.

I have trouble sleeping at night all too often, but it's not because of how I voted in the last Presidential election. Frankly, I don't know how some of you sleep at night, knowing that you helped maintain the grip Bush's cabal has on your country, your United States of America.



Keep D&D Civil!!

[Rocket River]

Does anyone else share my sentiment that compulsory service in the military (or even civil service) should be required of all young Americans? I do.



Why do you feel that way?

Are you Ex-Military?

Rocket River

[glynch]

As I've said before, a draft would be a disaster for our professional military and the country. I am completely against it.

The good things about the draft is that it would not allow our country to get involved in wars like this one, where from day one a near majority of people have realized that it was unnecessary. That is the way it should be. This is a war that has basically been supported by only a majority of Republicans, the Bush faithful. As we see now roughy 80% of Republicans support it; 80% of Democrats and 62% of independent oppose it. Except for the first few months or so when there was a general hope for the best, it has been this way since the beginning.

2,000 Americans, including contractors approximately have lost their lives and roughly 100,000 Iraqis due to the present system of sending the politically powerless who have "volunteered" to go. No price to pay for the elite war makers and their children leads to this.

It is a great evil that this country can go to war and kill tens of thousands of people in foreign countries with virtually no disruption of our daily lives for most Americans.

A draft would provide some protection against the type of atrocity exemplified by the Iraq War. Even with all the lies and spin and the loyalty to Bush and the GOP of many , you could not get draftees to go to fight for this stupidity.

Deckard, you and I and a now majority are against this war. If they were drafting our kids, we would be out in the streets again and would put a stop to this nonsense pretty quick. As it is now, it could drag out for years with Iraqis and our poor working class "volunteers" giving their life for Bush's boondoggle.

[Ankich]

I like how none of the arguments against the draft address the moral issue. The draft is involuntary servitude. It is slavery. Don't know how I can make it much clearer than that. To have a draft is to establish once and for all the supremacy of the government over the individual, and that the most sacred individual right, the right to your own life, is merely a means to the end of the majority (or the people in power claiming a majority), whenever their little foreign adventures become too inconvenient or inefficient.

[MartianMan]

I like how none of the arguments against the draft address the moral issue. The draft is involuntary servitude. It is slavery. Don't know how I can make it much clearer than that. To have a draft is to establish once and for all the supremacy of the government over the individual, and that the most sacred individual right, the right to your own life, is merely a means to the end of the majority (or the people in power claiming a majority), whenever their little foreign adventures become too inconvenient or inefficient.

A draft to protect the country is a necessary device. Being a citizen of a country is a dual relationship. The country provides an ideal, while the citizen provides the structure. If war was brought to the American soil, citizens have the responsibility to defend their country. It's not slavery. It's part of being a citizen.

Of course, in this case, the draft wouldn't be to protect America. It would be to further the cause of the Bush Administration. That, of course, is morally reprehensible.

[tigermission1]

A draft to protect the country is a necessary device. Being a citizen of a country is a dual relationship. The country provides an ideal, while the citizen provides the structure. If war was brought to the American soil, citizens have the responsibility to defend their country. It's not slavery. It's part of being a citizen.

Of course, in this case, the draft wouldn't be to protect America. It would be to further the cause of the Bush Administration. That, of course, is morally reprehensible.

Fully agree, well said!

[glynch]

I like how none of the arguments against the draft address the moral issue. The draft is involuntary servitude. It is slavery.

That is certainly arguable. If you believe some wars are moral, you could make the argument that to wage just wars against countries that have a draft, you need to do so, too.

Of course this does not include recent US wars in Grenada, Panama, and Iraq.

Talking about morality, it is immoral for the world's only superpower, (which will soon spend more on the military than the rest of the world put together --47% of worldwide spending now, with projected increases to go over the 50%) to go and atack other countries with no appreciable cost to it's decision makers or their children.

[u851662]

OMG! :eek: The comments in this thread are amazing to me. I would hope any citizen regardless of political affiliation share the same thought pattern as what I am reading in this thread. I never looked at a draft as a tool to keep OUR government from going to war with out JUST cause. It makes plenty of sense though. A true citizen of the United States would give his blood to protect his country. However it is unfortunate that at the present moment I will not recommend or let my son enroll in our armed forces. For the simple fact that I do not have the confidence in our Government to make moral decisions on how to use such a powerful beast. And what is most disturbing, not held accountable by 50 percent of our public. Because of political affiliation. Maybe a draft is a neccessary evil at this point. Either that or make it a rule that if you want to serve in public office, you must have a child in active Military. I am sure the decision makers will then make sure we go to wars that are justified and backed by the majority of the public. And when going to war I am sure they will send our forces out there with the best equiptment possible. Donald Rumsfeld would then probably think twice about going to war with the army and equiptment he doesnt have.

[wizkid83]

Honestly I think the solution would be every time the U.S. would go to an arms conflict, we will take a vote from those that support it, and those that don't. The force to fight that war will be drafted (if neccessary) from those that suppor it. That will ensure that we will get into conflicts that people feel is a real neccessity for this country. Iraq, maybe not. If some one invades the U.S. and we might lose all our property, people, even you ones might just decide to fight.

[rhadamanthus]

The White House and Congress do not want conscription again because then they would once again be held accountable by the people for sending American soldiers into harms way. With a volunteer force, I believe the powers in Washington face less criticism from the American people over troop deployments. Bring back the draft and watch us pull out of Iraq. I know that if I was a parent with high school age children and the draft was reinstituted, my voice of opposition to the war in Iraq would become much more vocal. I am personally against GWB's crusade in Iraq and have been since the beginning. I voted against him in 2000 and 2004, but I am willing to go with the "will" of the people for now. If the draft comes back, then I am all for mass demonstrations, civil disobedience and out right revolution to bring down the corrupt powers that now rule Washington, whether Democrat or Republican. I would rather spend the money we are spending on the war on revamping our economy to be less dependent on Middle East oil. Then maybe we wouldn’t have to go off fighting the oil crusades.

Well said.

[mateo]

I'm still amused about the poster that said that Al Queda was going to topple Iraq first, so that's why we had to go in there.

A draft would only make this more of a tragedy. My buddy came back from Iraq last week and after talking to him, what little support I had for this campaign is gone. I just want our Boys back.

[AggieRocket]

I protested against the war and the draft in the 60's, and I will not see my children exposed to it... not by a government run by the fools currently in power, and not for a war that should never have occured when it did.




Keep D&D Civil!!

It's ironic how the people on this board who actually lived through the draft era are the ones who protest it the most. I certainly share your sentiment. I would protest this war much more than Vietnam in the 1960's. The reason being was that Communism was a real threat to us then and there was no doubt that Ho Chi Minh was a Red. Communism in Vietnam was not a threat, but Communism as a whole was.

[giddyup]

[QUOTE=mateo]I'm still amused about the poster that said that Al Queda was going to topple Iraq first, so that's why we had to go in there.[QUOTE]

What I said was more hypothetical, subtle and nuanced than that reduction of yours.

[Dubious]

It's ironic how the people on this board who actually lived through the draft era are the ones who protest it the most. I certainly share your sentiment. I would protest this war much more than Vietnam in the 1960's. The reason being was that Communism was a real threat to us then and there was no doubt that Ho Chi Minh was a Red. Communism in Vietnam was not a threat, but Communism as a whole was.

50,000 Americans died in Viet Nam,and Viet Nam was no threat. It was a civil war adopted as a proxy by the opposing super powers of the day since direct confrontation was suicide. Communism was never the threat we were indoctrinated to believe. The clashwas more about of the egos and paranoia of the totalitarian leaders and the same nationalism that has always started wars.

If your war is just and supported by the people you will not need a draft. Drafts produce reluctant soldiers with low morale. They are only useful as cannon fodder. Luckily technology is reducing the requirements for cannon fodder.

[MartianMan]

50,000 Americans died in Viet Nam,and Viet Nam was no threat. It was a civil war adopted as a proxy by the opposing super powers of the day since direct confrontation was suicide. Communism was never the threat we were indoctrinated to believe. The clashwas more about of the egos and paranoia of the totalitarian leaders and the same nationalism that has always started wars.

If your war is just and supported by the people you will not need a draft. Drafts produce reluctant soldiers with low morale. They are only useful as cannon fodder. Luckily technology is reducing the requirements for cannon fodder.

Good post.

[RocketMan Tex]

Reinstating the draft is political suicide. Karl Rove will not allow Dubya to commit political suicide.

[rhester]

Every communist country should have one.

[AggieRocket]

50,000 Americans died in Viet Nam,and Viet Nam was no threat. It was a civil war adopted as a proxy by the opposing super powers of the day since direct confrontation was suicide. Communism was never the threat we were indoctrinated to believe. The clashwas more about of the egos and paranoia of the totalitarian leaders and the same nationalism that has always started wars.

If your war is just and supported by the people you will not need a draft. Drafts produce reluctant soldiers with low morale. They are only useful as cannon fodder. Luckily technology is reducing the requirements for cannon fodder.

I agree with you in that it was not the threat we were indoctrinated to believe. However, it was much more of a threat to us than Iraq is today, which would be the reason for a modern day draft. Communism was an ideology that had a superpower as strong as us pushing it. On top of that, it was a competing interest against us at the time. Saddam's only ally was himself. There is no legitimate competing interest in Iraq.

On a side note, while it is true that 50,000 died in Vietnam, only a small number died in the first 3 years of the war. If Iraq continues, it may produce Vietnam-type casualty numbers.

[Zion]

Talking about morality, it is immoral for the world's only superpower, (which will soon spend more on the military than the rest of the world put together --47% of worldwide spending now, with projected increases to go over the 50%) to go and atack other countries with no appreciable cost to it's decision makers or their children.

Even if there is a draft I very much doubt the children of the rich and powerful will come anywhere close to seeing any real action (e.g GWB). You can be assured they will find ways to dodge it or find cushy positions in the rear.

[mc mark]

Oh what I would give to hear a reporter ask Jr. if he thinks his daughters should join the military!

[Agent94]

Mandatory military service is an incredibly stupid and short sighted idea. Our national government already has way too much power. The last century should have taught us that strong centralized governments are bad.

Our media is run by a few corporations. Our public schools system is being run more and more from washington. And now mandatory military service is being proposed. What a great way to indoctrinate the populous.

[tigermission1]

Mandatory military service is an incredibly stupid and short sighted idea. Our national government already has way too much power. The last century should have taught us that strong centralized governments are bad.

Our media is run by a few corporations. Our public schools system is being run more and more from washington. And now mandatory military service is being proposed. What a great way to indoctrinate the populous.

You mean that hasn't already been done? Too late to turn back now...

[mc mark]

Groups Unite Against Military Recruiters

Nancy Carroll didn't know schools were giving military recruiters her family's contact information until a recruiter called her 17-year-old granddaughter.

That didn't sit well with Carroll, who believes recruiters unfairly target minority students. So she joined activists across the country who are urging families to notify schools that they don't want their children's contact information given out.

"People of color who go into the military are put on the front line," said the 67-year-old Carroll, who is black.

A provision of President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act requires school districts to provide military recruiters with student phone numbers and addresses or risk losing millions in federal education funding. Parents or students 18 and over can "opt out" by submitting a written request to keep the information private.

But critics say schools do not always convey that message. In New Mexico, the American Civil Liberties Union chapter sued the Albuquerque Public School District last month, charging it does not adequately inform parents of the opt-out provision.

Some critics oppose the federal law on privacy grounds, but others say it provides an unfair opportunity for the military to sway young minds — especially in economically depressed communities.

"They're not going to all the schools. They're going to the schools where they figure the kids will have less chance to go to college," said Rep. Jim McDermott (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash. "It's an insidious kind of draft, quite frankly."

Carroll, who is raising three grandchildren in a working-class neighborhood of Philadelphia, agrees that the practice is unfair. "I wouldn't want them to join," she said of her grandchildren.

But Pentagon officials say the military deserves the same access to students that schools give to colleges and employers.

"In the past, it was all-too-common for a school district to make student directory information readily available to vendors, prospective employers and post-secondary institutions while intentionally excluding the services," Air Force Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said in an e-mail.

"Having access to 17- to 24-year-olds is very key to us," said Maj. Gen. Michael Rochelle, commander of the Army Recruiting Command, said at a news conference Friday at Fort Meade, Md. "We would hope that every high school administrator would provide those lists to us. They're terribly important for what we're trying to do."

Asked about aggressive recruiters targeting young people, he said:

"I would certainly hope that we are harassing no one. A recruiter today has to contact roughly 100 people before they can generally get one of them to sit down and listen to the Army story. ... I'm not asking my recruiters to be any less aggressive. I would not wish for them to be overbearing or annoying."

As military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan drag on, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines are having trouble attracting recruits to their reserve forces, though only the Army is falling short in attracting people for its active-duty ranks.

Andrew Rinaldi, a senior at Edison High School in Edison, N.J., filed an opt-out letter but said he was contacted by a recruiter anyway. He said the recruiter mocked his pacifist views. "They're becoming more aggressive," he said.

None of the nation's approximately 22,600 high schools has failed to comply with the military provision of No Child Left Behind, and just one is "finalizing its compliance," Krenke said. None has lost funding.

Before No Child Left Behind was signed into law in 2002, about 12 percent of the nation's schools refused to turn over student records to military recruiters, Pentagon officials said. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who sponsored the recruitment provision, called the actions of those schools "offensive."

Now, activists are holding rallies and awareness campaigns to make sure students know they can opt out.

In Montclair, N.J., more than 80 percent of Montclair High School students have opted out since a student-led effort began last year.

"It's a place where military recruiters are not likely to have a ton of success, anyway, partly because ... a lot of parents can assist their kids with going to college," school district spokeswoman Laura Federico said.

In the urban blight of North Philadelphia, Joshua Gordy said the lure of college money led him to join the Army reserves at age 17. He said recruiters at his high school told him he could earn $35,000 for college.

That hasn't happened. Gordy, a 20-year-old reservist, said he apparently failed to send in the right paperwork in time. He hopes to enroll in community college this fall.

Rep. McDermott faults the military for enticing students with talk of patriotism, adventure and college funds, instead of giving them a realistic view of combat.

McDermott is among those in Congress trying to change the law so that students instead "opt-in" for recruitment.

"There's nothing dishonorable with serving in the military," said McDermott, a psychiatrist who served stateside during Vietnam. "But it ought to be done with your eyes open."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050617/ap_on_re_us/military_in_schools&printer=1;_ylt=AjEvy3daUS_rDJv84CbCLiNH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

[mc mark]

Someone Else's Child
By BOB HERBERT

It has become clearer than ever that Americans do not want to fight George W. Bush's tragically misguided war in Iraq.

You can still find plenty of folks arguing that we have to stay the course, or even raise the stakes by sending more troops to the war zone. But from the very start of this war the loudest of the flag-waving hawks were those who were safely beyond military age themselves and were unwilling to send their own children off to fight.

It's easy to be macho when you have nothing at risk. The hawks want the war to be fought with other people's children, while their own children go safely off to college, or to the mall. The number of influential American officials who have children in uniform in Iraq is minuscule.

Most Americans want no part of Mr. Bush's war, which is why Army recruiters are failing so miserably at meeting their monthly enlistment quotas. Desperate, the Army is lowering its standards, shortening tours, increasing bonuses and violating its own recruitment regulations and ethical guidelines.

Americans do not want to fight this war.

Times Square in Midtown Manhattan is the most heavily traveled intersection in the country. It was mobbed on V-E Day in May 1945 and was the scene of Alfred Eisenstaedt's legendary photo of a sailor passionately kissing a nurse on V-J Day the following August. There is currently an armed forces recruiting station in Times Square, but it's a pretty lonely outpost. An officer on duty one afternoon last week said no one had come in all day.

Vince Morrow, a 10th grader from Allentown, Pa., was interviewed across the street from the recruiting station, on Broadway. He said he had once planned to join the military after graduating from high school, but had changed his mind. "It's the war," he said. "Going over and never coming back. Before the war you'd just go to different places and help people. Now you go over there and you fight."

His mother, Michelle, said: "I'd like to see him around awhile. It was different before the war. It's the fear of not coming home. Our other son just graduated Saturday and he was planning to go into the Air Force. They told him college was included and made him all kinds of promises. They almost made him sign papers before we had decided. We thought about it and researched it and decided against it."

Last week's New York Times/CBS News Poll found that the mounting casualties and continuing turmoil in Iraq have made Americans increasingly pessimistic about the war. A majority said the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq and only 37 percent approved of the president's handling of the war.

What hasn't changed is the fact that the vast majority of the parents who support the war do not want their children to fight it. A woman in the affluent New York suburb of Ridgewood, N.J., who has a daughter in high school and a younger son, said: "I would not want my children to go. If there wasn't a war it would be different. I support the war and I think we need to be there. But it's not going well. It's becoming like Vietnam. It's a very bad situation. But we can't leave."

I don't know how you win a war that your country doesn't want to fight. We sent too few troops into Iraq in the first place and the number of warm bodies available for Iraq and other military missions going forward is dwindling alarmingly. The Bush crowd may be bellicose, but for most Americans the biggest contribution to the war effort is a bumper sticker that says "support our troops," and maybe a belligerent call to a talk radio station.

The home-front "warriors" who find it so easy to give the thumbs up to war endanger the truly valorous men and women who are actually willing to put on a uniform, pick up a weapon and place their lives on the line.

The president and these home-front warriors got us into this war and now they don't know how to get us out. Nor do they have a satisfactory answer to the important ethical question: how do you justify sending other people's children off to fight while keeping a cloak of protection around your own kids?

If the United States had a draft (for which there is no political sentiment), its warriors would be drawn from a much wider swath of the population, and political leaders would think much longer and harder before committing the country to war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/20/opinion/20herbert.html

[A-Train]

Recruitment for the U.S. Army and Marine Corps is on the brink of disaster. Indeed, along with combat, recruiting duty is now considered the worst mission in the military.

are they kidding? Sitting in a recruiting office and going to a few high schools sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me...

[pirc1]

are they kidding? Sitting in a recruiting office and going to a few high schools sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me...

Not if you can never meet your quota for recruits. The tongue lashing can be painful. ;)

[krosfyah]

We're not talking about a draft...it is a mandetory requirement in peace or war time. Draft implies it is only a wartime requirement.

A two year military requirement stint after high school is a great idea. I support it whole heartedly.

Those of you claiming it is unjust or unfair claiming you have some sort of right NOT to serve in the military don't understand that America GAVE YOU THE RIGHT to say that. America gives you rights and you must fight for them.

I'm nearly positive we wouldn't have engaged in the Iraq war if more American had skin in the game (ei...their sons and daughters). This practice of heavily recruiting in poor neighborhoods allows middle-class America to be too comfortable.

[A-Train]

Not if you can never meet your quota for recruits. The tongue lashing can be painful. ;)

Well, NOBODY is meeting the quota these days, so I'm sure it's not as bad as it seems. :)

[krosfyah]

Well, NOBODY is meeting the quota these days, so I'm sure it's not as bad as it seems. :)

Actually, military recruiters are financially incentivized to meet their quotas. IE...if you don't make quota...you lose money. Also, the recruiters can be demoted for regularly not meeting quota. I don't know about you, but that sounds like a crappy job to me.

[rockbox]

Actually, military recruiters are financially incentivized to meet their quotas. IE...if you don't make quota...you lose money. Also, the recruiters can be demoted for regularly not meeting quota. I don't know about you, but that sounds like a crappy job to me.

A crappy job is going to Iraq for 20K a year for an indefinite time period with the chance of coming back in a body bag.