The Future of Iraq

Doug Bandow writes at The Washington Note:

The Washington Note Archives: Recruiting Problems Should Create Cause for Reflection As most everyone knows, the Army and Marine Corps and Army National Guard and Reserves have been running into recruiting problems. The cause isn't difficult to understand. Indeed, you'd have to worry about someone who was enthusiastic about joining the armed services in order to fight in a war that: was based on completely false claims; has been badly bungled by officials who foresaw no opposition and didn't bother to acquire the necessary equipment (such as body armor and armored vehicles); has spawned a "democratic" process in Iraq that risks becoming distinctly illiberal, and has created an active recruiting and training ground for terrorists....

[I]f anything is evident in the aftermath of the administration's WMD intelligence fiasco, it is that the war was not necessary, but a matter of choice pursued for reasons having little to do with any direct threats to America. The fact that those most at risk in fighting -- as opposed to arm-chair warriors sitting around Washington planning -- such a conflict are increasingly saying no should create cause for reflection. There is nothing inevitable about how long America stays, or in what form it remains engaged.

If war enthusiasts (especially those enthusiastic young conservatives about whom I read who are now active on college campuses) can't seem to make it down to the armed services recruiting offices, the administration has yet another reason to accelerate plans to get out. It's one thing to contemplate conscription to preserve the nation from a hegemonic totalitarian menace. It's quite another thing for those who failed to serve yesterday to draft those who don't want to join today to spread "democracy" -- especially if the ultimate result is an authoritarian Iraq leaning toward Axis of Evil member Iran.

And a largely peaceful, somewhat orderly, relatively authoritarian Iraq closely linked to Iran seems to be the best attainable outcome, looking forward. The other possibilities are worse.

Comments

[wkwillis]

The term "ethnic cleansing" comes to mind. Either the Quebec version with realators or the Bosnian version with guns.
The Shia Iraq, the Sunni Arab Iraq, the Turkoman Iraq, the Christian Iraq, the Kurdish Iraqs, and the very small Secular Iraq for the westernized Iraqis. Probably at the oil port along with the US base to keep the other Iraqs from trying to seize control of the oil exports.

[Steve]

I think an Iranian leaning Iraq is possible, but the ethnic makeup of Iraq will make the formation of a Shi'i state very difficult (if not counterproductive to stability). As a result, a thawing of relations and some cooperation may be the closest these two new nations will get. Moreover, religion alone does not make allies, a common interest does. There may well exist territorial disputes as well as conflicts regarding the American presence (which on some scale may be permanent for the next decade or so) in the region.

[lawrence Rocke]

at the end of "Farenheit 9/11", doesn't Moore make the point about what will happen when the pool of recruits for our endless war dries up? wasn't this the most moving, most salient, most memorable part of the documentary? i know most reviewers (and viewers?) got lost in the snark before hand, but wasn't the end the point that no one seemed to want to talk about? hey, i only saw it once, so what the heck do i know?
can one just say that if you want pre-emptive wars, you need a draft and tax hikes, and if you don't want the latter, you should not press for the former?

[monkyboy]

The new recruits the army is sending to Korea have been going on a crime spree. One new soldier robbed a cab driver right in front his base as he was being dropped off.

How low has the army set standards to get the few recruits they are getting?

[Steve]

Michael Moore is a smart guy, but he plays loose with the truth and sacrastically states opinion as obvious facts.

In the case of recruitment, I think Moore's argument is in conflict with itself, if not altogether contradictory. On the one hand, he points out that this is a poor-mans army, compelled to military service through economic necessity. But on the other hand, he argues enlistment is a clear choice that will be affected by America's bad foreign policy decision. If the latter is true, the desperate economic situation of recruits must not be that desperate and perhaps this isn't a poor-man's army but a truly volunteer force.

Secondly, the argument that America's soldiers are being admitted to low standards isn't qualified. Of any group of young men (and women) in their 20s in a foreign country for a tour of duty, a small percentage will commit local crimes. I dont think you can cite that example without statistics to demonstrate a weighted increased in criminal behavior across the military ranks. This is especially true compared to draft Armys in Vietnam, Korea, and WWII.

Finally, I think that with respect to the overall point, the War in Iraq was not a war that America had "no choice" to be in, and each American/Iraqi death was not entirely in defense of freedom (either ours or the Iraqis Democracy), and I think those are legitimate, albeit incomplete, criticisms of the war in Iraq.

[howard]

Steve, please: your last paragraph shows you to be a sensible fellow, so why the phony moore-bashing?

there is no contradiction: the overall reason that we have an army largely composed of people from lower-income backgrounds is that the army is a better career choice. the reason that despite that, people aren't joining the army, is that they could be killed in the service of a phony, stupid war.

and second, it has been clear from numerous media reports that standards are dropping rapidly in recruitment just so that we can get close to our targets.

Prof, your last couple sentences are the most important: it has always been the case that the best forseeable outcome (as distinct from the best utopian fantasy) was not worth the costs....

[Ari]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/national/31recruit.html

On Farthest U.S. Shores, Iraq Is a Way to a Dream
By JAMES BROOKE

SAIPAN, Northern Mariana Islands - By jogging at sunset on the white sands of a palm-fringed beach here, 17-year-old Audrey O. Bricia is doing more than toning up for her next try in this island's Miss Philippines contest. She is getting in shape for United States Army boot camp.

To gain an edge on the competition for enlistment, she reserved a seat two days in advance to take Army's aptitude test on a recent Saturday morning here. Safely ensconced in her seat, she watched an Army recruiter turn away 10 latecomers, all new high school graduates.

"I am scared about Iraq, but I am going to have to give something in return for those benefits I want," said Ms. Bricia, a daughter of Filipino immigrants whose ambition is to attend nursing school in California.

From Pago Pago in American Samoa to Yap in Micronesia, 4,000 miles to the west, Army recruiters are scouring the Pacific, looking for high school graduates to enlist at a time when the Iraq war is turning off many candidates in the States.

The Army has found fertile ground in the poverty pockets of the Pacific. The per capita income is $8,000 in American Samoa, $12,500 in the Northern Marianas and $21,000 in Guam, all United States territories. In the Marshalls and Micronesia, former trust territories, per capita incomes are about $2,000.

The Army minimum signing bonus is $5,000. Starting pay for a private first class is $17,472. Education benefits can be as much as $70,000.

"You can't beat recruiting here in the Marianas, in Micronesia," said First Sgt. Olympio Magofna, who grew up on Saipan and oversees Pacific recruiting for the Army from his base in Guam. "In the states, they are really hurting," he said. "But over here, I can afford go play golf every other day."

Here, where "America starts its day," the Army recruiting station in Guam has 4 of the Army's top 12 "producers." ...

[Steve]

Howard - I dont completely bash Michael Moore, he makes some good arguments, however I think he has an agenda, so its not best to view him as someone that intends on portraying the facts in an entirely truthful way. For example, he established in F-911 that there is a Saudi-American connection, and the US was doing the Saudi-Oil thing and thats why we invaded, but Moore fails to establish how the Saudi's benefitted from the Iraq war. Perhaps there are implicit claims, but Moore drops the Saudi connection very quickly in the movie so we are left to formulate these ideas on our own.

Now in terms of the "contradiction" I think we should compare the Iraqi military with the US military. There is a high probability of being killed in the Iraqi military, yet people line up by the thousands to join? Why... jobs and pay. Here, Moore's argument makes sense. Show up at an extremely poor nations doorstep, sound the patriotic alarm, and you'll get every poor person from Basra to Takrit to join up. Calling that a "volunteer" force would be misleading.

In the case of America, no such extreme poverty exists, there are plenty of other options that pay well other than joining the military, therefore I take issue with the argument that its a "poor mans army" and therefore not truly a volunteer force.

See, what is in dispute here is Moore's idea of poverty and mine. He is taking the relative poverty route, and I am setting a basic standard of living to define poverty. If a person has food, shelter, and some access to medical care, they are not poor in my book, but in Moore's they are. Asking a hungry person whose home is barely a home, and whose family is in desperate need of money to pay for basic medical/school needs, to join the military is hardly a choice. Legally, its like making someone sign their freedom away under duress.

I simply dont think such a situation exists in the United States, and that the duress (poverty induced) that would compel people to join the military is not sufficient to no longer call it an "all volunteer force." I have no problem understanding inequity in relative terms, or social problems in this way, but with respect to this issue, relative poverty is the wrong way to understand the issue.

Finally, with respect to the idea that recruitment standards are dropping, I think that the standard American soldier is far more well behaved than most militaries, and the modern American soldier is better behaved than past American soldiers. Once again, you are making a relative argument, and I cite an absolute one.

[ken melvin]

Steve, I find your perception of American society naive; quite naive indeed. I can take you to any major city in America and introduce you to homeless people. Men, women, children, women with children, . . . , families who are homeless. I can take you to many places here in the SF Bay Area where even illegals willing to work for peanuts can't find a job. I can show you illegal Mexicans working for less than peanuts. I can show you illegals living eight per one bedroom apartment. I can show you engineers with twenty years experience bagging groceries.

But, hey don't take my word for it. Wherever you live, go down and talk to the people at the homeless shelter. Ask at the local churches who provide for the poor. Check out who's working in the restaurants, BK, McDonalds, the coffee shops, . . . Go to a local park and strike up a conversation with one of the gentlemen sitting around in their cars. I think that you are in for one hell of a surprise.

[NBarnes]

I'm not as nice as Ken.

Steve: You're living in a dream world. What you think about the reality of life in the United States... doesn't exist. You have a clearly beloved and elaborated fantasy, but it's just not true. And the sooner you wake up from your pretty dream and join the rest of us in what we call 'reality', the better off both of us will be.

[howard]

Steve, that's not what F9-11 said, nor, as others note, is your sense of poverty in america accurate, nor, for that matter, is the question at hand the utterly unknowable one of how US standards of behavior would compare to someone else's standards of behavior in a war zone.

if you have any actual comments on the simple facts: recruitment is increasingly problematic, particularly becuase parents don't want their children heading off to a war zone in a pointless cause, and standards are dropping as a result, feel free.

Lawrence, i'm not sure what you're talking about. You first refer to the army, then the marines, as though they were the same entity, so to begin with, it would help if you could actually tell us what you mean.

once you do, we can move on to the related point - if, indeed, re-enlistment from soldiers in iraq is higher than projected (and i don't know if it is or isn't, so i welcome your actual facts), then it might suggest group solidarity, or reenlistment bonuses, or a lowball projection. But that's not the issue at hand, which is the Army's ability to recruit new soldiers is clearly being hammered by this war. Do you dispute that?

[gordon]

Well, Vietnam has obviously taught the US military two things: (1) don't try to draft middle-class white boys, and (2) keep the photographers away from the action. But what to do about recruitment? Here's a thought; organise somebody to invade the USA. That should bring them flocking in!

[Steve]

Ken, NBarnes,

I understand your position, and I do not mean to say America's poor are "rich." I do mean to say they are richer than most others. While I cannot claim to be a world traveler, there is simply no comparison between the poverty in the United States and the kind of poverty in, say, Chile, or Iraq. There simply isn't he infrastructure in any of these society's to offer even rudamentary social services. I understand and appreciate the fact that there's more work to do, but thats separate from my argument regarding recruitment and whether poverty is a form of duress in the formation of a volunteer army.

The kind of duress of poverty, to force someone into the military on purely economic means simply does not exist here. I'll admit, certain parts of the South look like a 3rd world country, but per capita, people are not forced by economic necessity to join the military. Moreover, the kinds of people who join, (generally) healthy adult males, have more options that the truly poor, the homeless people. They experience even less duress in their enlistment, than say, a homeless person with a mental disorder. Most truly poor people in the United States probably wouldn't even qualify to be recruited, and hence, she be disqualified altogether from this argument, since dental and medical records would be insufficient to join. I dont mean this in a heartless way, but strictly referring to our "volunteer army" argument.

We dont see recruits turning away from the Iraqi military, and as much as we'd like it to be because they are "stepping up the plate" or "Iraqi patriotism" we know its an economic issue. That isn't true in the United States, and as such I believe we are fully justified in understanding the military to be a volunteer force.

[Steve]

I do not dispute the fact that the ability to recruit people is hurt by wartime. In fact, I rely on it to support my argument that its an all volunteer force. A truly economically dependent military, like the kind in North Korea, does not exist here. As such, people can exersize the kind of choice you are referring to.

[Steve]

I think the nature of our dispute boils down to this:

where you see monopsony, I see monopolistic competition. You think that the military comes to town, and its a young persons only choice, and citing the economic demographics, say that its a poor persons army. However, i say its not a monopsony, and that just because there exists an incentive to join the military, it doesn't constitute the kind of forced labor that would be necessary to say that its no longer an all volunteer army (a monopsonistic case).

If you show up with, say, a construction job to a town where a person sees it as the highest paying job, of course they will take it (minus or plus a compensating wage differential). However, going to St. Louis, a person may have incentive to be a brick layer, but they are not forced to. In Malaysia, thats not exactly the case. Showing up, you may be the only game in town, and you behave monopsonistically. In that scenario, there is unrealistic pressure on people to work for a particular firm.

With respect to the military its the same issue. People do not HAVE to join the military, they have other options. As such, I believe that its an all volunteer force. Of course, we all would prefer to maximize leisure, so if we can afford it we dont sign up. But that doesn't mean there's economic duress to join!

[Ari]

The sense that I have, though not centain, is that a fairly high proportion of our soldiers come from rural areas, also they are often from immigrant families. Notice the NYTimes article I posted about highly successful recruiting in American territories off-shore.

[J Thomas]

"It is note worthy that the U.S. Army active duty re-enlistment rates for those serving in Iraq are much above projected and programmed. What explains such counter-intuitive behavior if recruitment rates are indeed slipping?"

It isn't that they can't find better-paying work. Lots of them could come back to iraq with private contractors and make a whole lot more money.

How about this line of thought. Suppose you saw all these national guard guys in to iraq, some of them pretty old geezers. And they tell you about how if they drop out of NG for any reason, they're likely to get reassigned to any unit that needs them and sent back to iraq sooner than if they stay in.

So you think it out. Say you're scheduled to go back to iraq in 2 years. You quit now, you go look for a civilian job, and next year they call you up and say you have a critical specialty and they need you to go to iraq right now with a bunch of strangers. You lose out on a year's pay, you aren't with your unit, etc etc. What good is it to not re-up when they can call you back any time and send you to iraq sooner with maybe a pay cut? Better to take the whopping re-up bonus and relax.

[John Owens]

Steve: You seem to think of both the desperation and the risk as rather binary values. I would disagree. In choosing to sign up or not for largely economic reasons, the difference between expected economic benefits should be weighed against the perceived risk, among other factors (e.g., patriotic fervor, family expectations). The difference of benefits obviously depends heavily on what the potential recruit could reasonably expect to make over the next two, four, however many years as a civilian. In places like the aforementioned U.S. territories, the average difference is considerably greater than the average difference in the mainland, and even more so for selected areas or demographics of the mainland. And on the perceived risk front, that's going to be a purely personal valuation, depending on how likely you might be to be wounded, killed, etc., and how strongly you consider that to be a disincentive (it might seem rather absolute, but not everyone fears death equally). So, while certainly not everyone in the pool of potential recruits is going to analyze the situation this logically, it should still result in an overall greater willingness to accept the same perceived risk for those with worse current career expectations, than for those with better.

[bakho]

Iraq has turned our soldiers into glorified cops. If someone wants to be a cop, they join the local force where most of the people speak the same language, will point out the bad guys and generally be thankful when the cops arrive to restore peace and order. In Iraq, our soldiers are not unlikely to kill innocents instead of bad guys, it is hard to tell the difference and the Iraqi public knows to avoid driving too near our cops and in general, avoid Americans if they want a long life. Pile on top of that intense heat, bad working conditions, being stationed away from family for extended periods and being paid far less than the contract security. WTF is going to sign up for that.

If you do want to sign up for that, at least sign up for the real military where the equipment and pay is better. A lot of people are in the guard because it is extra money, the commitment is not that great, they can be home with their family and they can serve a real purpose by helping out in times of natural disasters. That all changed with deploying the guard in Iraq with bad pay, worse benefits, substandard equipment and little training for the job they are asked to do. On top of that when things go wrong as at Abu Graib, the Guard are forced to take all the responsibility so the top brass can continue to collect their medals. During the Civil War, governors of Confederate states protected their National Guard from deployment. State may have to return to those rules and create non-deployable units to fill the vacancies.

[Ion C.Laskaris]

I strongly urge you to rethink your premise that an
"authoritarian" Iraq is the best we can expect out of that
mess. It will probably be all we will get because of the
little Fascist Republican illegally in the White House
and all his corrupt cronies.

What could have happened with a competent President and
an intelligent Commander in Chief would have been a
solution worthy of Alexander the Great, and not one made up by Butch the Little. See my website: www.IONREVUSA.com

The great bloodbath in Iraq is yet to come.
The Shiites will turn even more on the Sunnis to exterminate them with Iran"s increasing help.
The Sunnis certainly deserve that fate.

Next, they will gang up with the Iranians and the Turks
to do their best to wipe out the Kurds. The only solution with any honor to it was to draw and quarter
this stupid nation-state created by the British Empire
solely to control the region's oil.

The Kurds have had a self-conscious ethnic,though
tribal and national "sense of identity for more than
2000 years. The recent Kurdish film: "Elephants Can Fly"
cuts deep into the wounds of their struggles up there in the mountains. I urge you, with other good Berkeley folks, to schedule it in your baliwick if possible.

I feel confident, as a former Harvard Square habitue,
your "tribe" will find it illuminating, powerful,and
true. We intellectuals also must learn how to feel ever
more deeply, if we are to move spiritually from strength
to strength for the struggles sure to come in our own
land against " the Axis of Evil " here.

I shall be in touch from time to time to respond and to
give our inputs from Vermont promoting "the new revolut-
ion of thought for 2006 + 2008 and beyond.
Keep up the good work! ICL, 204 Home Avenue, Burlington,
Vermont,05401
to schedule it in your

[save_the_rustbelt]

Ben Stein (quirky to be sure) has proposed a 1% surtax on high incomes, to be collected until the last soldier leaves Iraq.

Probably not high enough, but the debate would be interesting.

Last time I heard, less than 1% of members of Congress have a son, daughter or close relative in the military. That is shameful indeed.

[Ion C.Laskaris]

postscript to my plea for the Kurds. Sorry for my Dumbo
error for the piece I posted for 9:54 a.m. your time -
The Kurdish film's title is: TURTLES CAN FLY!

[Bruce Webb]

"but Moore fails to establish how the Saudi's benefitted from the Iraq war"

Mike may have failed but let me try. The presense of American military bases on Saudi soil was a constant irritant to Islamic Extremists. Indeed Osama claimed it as a reason for Jihad, get the Crusaders out of the land that held the holy sites of Mecca and Medina. And what do you know, three years after 9/11 we have evacuated our bases in Saudi Arabia. And in so doing released a lot of pressure on the House of Saud.

Osama's only publically stated political goal was to get the US out of Saudi Arabia. Near as I can tell he is 1 for 1. And strangely enough the House of Saud has the same score.

[J Thomas]

That's true about us being publicly seen to leave saudi arabia.

And what we're seen to do in iraq is surely persuading them it was the right decision. I doubt we'll be invited back any time in the next 50 years. Not unless we manage to spike the monarchy's koolaid with LSD or something.

On the other hand the war in iraq give bin Ladin another great campaign plank. And the saudis asked us for something a lot harder, too. They asked Bush to fix things up for the palestinians. Bush promised them he would, that the palestinians would get an independent nation with the west bank and gaza. If I remember the news account, the big meeting with the saudis about that was on 9/10.

And then Bush backed down. He wound up saying he'd take care of palestine *after* he took care of iraq.

If at some point Bush decides to handle israeli/palestinian relations, what's the chance he'll have enough political capital left to accomplish anything but whatever Sharon (or whoever) wants him to?

[bob]

"doesn't Moore ? wasn't this the most moving, most salient, most memorable part of the documentary"

The Nazis made "documentaries" much like Moore's propaganda. As to the "news media", the radical Islamic's are COUNTING on them!