Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Military Recruitment Disad
Military Recruitment Disad ...... 1 Strategy Sheet ...... 4 1NC Shell ...... 5 1NC Shell ...... 6 1NC Shell ...... 7 Uniqueness 2NC Wall ...... 8 A2 – Economic Recovery Non-Unique ...... 9 Uniqueness – Economy ...... 10 Uniqueness – Generic ...... 11 Uniqueness – Generic ...... 12 Uniqueness – Generic ...... 13 Uniqueness – Troop Quality ...... 14 Link 2NC Wall ...... 15 Link – Expanding Health Care ...... 16 Link – Expanding Health Care ...... 17 Link – Expanding Health Care ...... 18 Link – Expanding Health Care Draft ...... 19 Link – Housing ...... 20 Link – Immigrants ...... 21 Link – Immigrants ...... 22 Link – Immigrants ...... 23 Link – Job Growth ...... 24 Link – Job Growth ...... 25 Link – Job Growth ...... 26 Link – Job Growth ...... 27 Link – Money ...... 28 Link – Poverty ...... 29 Link – Poverty ...... 30 Link – Poverty ...... 31 Link – Poverty ...... 32 Link – Poverty ...... 33 Link – Poverty ...... 34
1 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Poverty ...... 35 Link – Poverty ...... 36 Link – Poverty ...... 37 Link – Social Services ...... 38 Link – Social Services ...... 39 Link – Social Services ...... 40 Link – Social Services ...... 41 Link – Social Services ...... 42 Link – Social Services ...... 43 Link – Social Services ...... 44 Link – Social Services ...... 45 Link – Social Services ...... 46 Link – Social Services ...... 47 Link – Social Services ...... 48 Link – Social Services ...... 49 Link – Social Services ...... 50 I/L – Military Strength K Heg ...... 51 I/L – Military Strength K Heg ...... 52 I/L – Recruitment K Heg ...... 53 I/L – Recruitment K Readiness ...... 54 I/L – Qualified Recruitment K Readiness ...... 55 I/L – Qualified Recruitment K Heg ...... 56 I/L – Readiness K Heg ...... 57 I/L – Lowering Recruitment Standards Kills Power ...... 58 I/L – Recruitment Key to Readiness ...... 59 I/L – Recruitment Key To Readiness ...... 60 I/L – Recruitment Key to Power Projection ...... 61 Impact – Readiness 2NC Overview [LONG] ...... 62 Impact – Readiness 2NC Overview [LONG] ...... 63 Impact – Readiness 2NC Overview [LONG] ...... 64 Impact – Readiness 2NC Overview [SHORT] ...... 65 Impact – Readiness – Proliferation 2NC ...... 66 Impact – Readiness – Terrorism 2NC ...... 67 Impact – Readiness – Terrorism 2NC ...... 68 2 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Readiness – Heg 2NC ...... 69 Impact – Readiness – Heg 2NC ...... 70 Impact – Readiness – War 2NC ...... 71 Impact – Readiness – War 2NC ...... 72 Impact – Readiness – War 2NC ...... 73 Impact – Readiness – Pakistan 2NC ...... 74 Impact – Heg Solves War ...... 75 Impact – Heg Solves Prolif ...... 76 Impact – Heg Solves War + Econ ...... 77 Impact – Draft – Democracy ...... 78 Impact – Draft – Democracy ...... 79 Impact – Draft – Democracy ...... 80 Impact – Draft – Freedom ...... 81 Impact – Draft – Hegemony ...... 82 Impact – RMA 2NC ...... 83 Impact – RMA K Heg ...... 84 A2 – Iraq Kills Readiness ...... 85 A2 – Disad Is Racist ...... 86 **Affirmative Answers** ...... 87 Non-Unique - Economy ...... 88 Non-Unique – Jobs ...... 89 Hegemony Sustainable ...... 90 Hegemony Unsustainable ...... 91 Readiness Collapse Inevitable – DADT ...... 92 Readiness Collapse Inevitable – DADT ...... 93 Analytic Frontline ...... 94
3 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Strategy Sheet
The military DA applies to -Marriage incentives (TANF), the aff improves jobs which trades off with the military -Immigration health care (but only for legal immigrants) – immigrants join the military in the SQ because they have no other options, plan trades off by giving the legal immigrants the benefits the army would give
The military DA does not apply to -Military aff -Prisons / Detention centers (prisoners aren’t joining the military because they’re incarcerated, means no trade offs) -Abortion
Other applications of evidence: **The military uniqueness ev (recruiting high now, military turning away recruits because there are to many, etc) can be used against the military aff’s claims that recruitment is low in the SQ
DA Overview Uniqueness – military recruiting is high in the SQ because of the high unemployment rate and the benefits (like health care) that the military offers. Link – against marriage incentives the aff increases jobs thru TANF which means that people don’t join the military because they can get another job that’s not dangerous. Against immigrants the link is that in the SQ the immigrants join the military because it’s the fastest way to get citizenships and benefits and they have no other options. Personal are key to readiness, and American military readiness key to stop global nuclear war.
Written by: Alex Resar, David Seidman, Andy Lee, Mizzel Badruddin, and Aidan McKeever.
4 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 1NC Shell
Military recruitment high now – job security and economy. The Boston Globe “Down economy boosts military Enlistment figures spike” March 1, 2009 .Lexis
WASHINGTON - The faltering US economy is fueling a dramatic turnaround in military recruiting, with new statistics showing that the Army is experiencing the highest rate of new enlistments in six years. The Army exceeded its goals each month from October through January - the first quarter of the new fiscal year - for both the active-duty Army and the Army Reserve, according to figures compiled by the US Army Recruiting Command. Officials said it is the first time since the first quarter of fiscal year 2003, before the start of the Iraq War, that the Army has started out its recruiting year on such a high note. In recent years the Army either missed its initial goals or barely met them, and was forced to accept increasing percentages of recruits who either did not graduate from high school, scored in the lowest category on the armed forces qualification test, or required a waiver for past criminal activity. Those trends had sparked deep concern that the largest branch of the armed forces was headed for a crisis in quality at a time when it is expanding the size of the overall force. The latest recruiting outlook "is good news in the nick of time," said Beth Asch, a senior economist specializing in military manpower studies at the government-funded Rand Corporation. Citing historical trends, Asch and other specialists predict that quality will improve along with the numbers, including the share of new recruits who have earned high school diplomas and scored high on entrance exams. The Army has long had a goal of ensuring that at least 90 percent of new recruits have high-school diplomas - considered a key measure of competence and commitment. But in recent years the percentage of enlistees who completed high school has dropped below 80 percent. The recruiting command, based at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, does not compile statistics on the quality of new recruits until the end of the fiscal year, so such information about recent enlistees is not yet available. But Asch, who frequently advises the Pentagon on demographic trends, thinks the Army has reason to be hopeful. "What the enlistment models would predict is there would be an increase in high-quality enlistment," said Asch. Alan Gropman, a professor at the National Defense University in Washington who specializes in military recruiting, agreed. "They have more people to choose from and they will choose better people," he said. Another factor that may be driving the recent gains, specialists said, is the improved situation in Iraq and the expectation that US military involvement in the war will be winding down - thus decreasing the likelihood that a new recruit would be deployed there. On Friday, President Obama announced a plan to withdraw combat troops from Iraq by August 2010. A recent study by researchers at Clemson University concluded that the Iraq war was a major factor in the steep drop in enlistments, especially among the most highly qualified potential recruits. The 2007 study found that the Iraq war had "reduced Army high-quality enlistments by one-third, after controlling for other factors." "If you extrapolate, this Iraq affect will disappear and presumably there will be a reversal of that and there will be an increase in enlistment," said Asch. But the dominant factor driving more people to consider Army careers appears to be the steady rise in the unemployment rate across the country. Since September, the unemployment rate nationwide has increased from roughly 6.2 percent to 7.6 percent, a rise of more than 20 percent, according to government figures. Government studies in recent decades have indicated that for every 10 percent increase in unemployment there is usually a 5 percent boost in military recruiting. "Typically a bad economy has worked to the benefit of the military," said retired Navy Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, currently the dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H. So far this fiscal year, the Army's recruiting numbers show a steady improvement in every month. The Army exceeded its goal by 293 in October, 730 in November, 429 in December, and 706 in January for a total of 2,158. "It was our best [period] in six years, in that we achieved our monthly missions [in] both active and Reserve each month," said Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the recruiting command. "We know that historically an increase in the civilian unemployment rate has resulted in an increase in Army enlistments." Indeed, it appears that the sagging economy is helping all the branches of the military, not just the Army, which has borne the brunt of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In February, the Defense Department released figures showing that for the month of January all branches of the active-duty military met or exceeded their recruiting goals. The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps also met or exceeded their goal of re-enlisting current members. In the Reserve corps, only the Army National Guard did not meet its January goal, but remained "well ahead" of its annual goal to date, the Pentagon reported. But while a bad economy is usually a boon for military recruiting, Hutson warns that the Pentagon still must closely monitor who it is bringing into the ranks.
5 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 1NC Shell
Unique Social services offered by the military are critical to attracting members to the military. Brian Gifford, RAND Institute, The Camouflaged Safety Net: The U.S. Armed Forces as Welfare State Institution, Published by Oxford University Press Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 2006 13(3):372-399; doi:10.1093/sp/jxl003 http://sp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/13/3/372? maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
What becomes clear from this analysis is that expanding the welfare state concept to include state institutions, programs, and policies that provide benefits to individuals or remove them from the competitive workforce increases the potential for explaining the intersections of the state, labor markets, and public social provision. Such a reconceptualization also allows for cross-polity comparisons of the relative effectiveness of social welfare strategies. Volunteers who fill the ranks of the U.S. military by no means represent a cross-section of the general population. They are more likely to come from the lower socioeconomic strata and are disproportionately African American (Segal and Verdugo 1994; Moskos and Butler 1996). New recruits and career service members may view the military as a refuge against inhospitable labor market conditions, rather than one among many equally desirable employment opportunities. Investigation in this area may prove useful in both probing conceptions of de-commodification more deeply and understanding social assistance recipients themselves—those who make claims on the state based on their status of poverty, rather than demanding their social rights as full citizens. It may well be the case that in the United States the less-privileged strata of society often circumvent both commodification and the stigma of "welfare" through attachments to the armed forces and thus compare favorably with social welfare recipients in other Western industrialized nations. This may be particularly true of African Americans, who are overrepresented in both the armed forces and social assistance programs such as TANF and underrepresented in the workplace.
6 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 1NC Shell
Recruitment is key to hegemony Mackenzie M. Eaglen [Senior Policy Analyst for National Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for Inter-national Studies, at The Heritage Foundation] “Protecting the Protectors by Investing in People and Next-Generation Equipment” June 8, 2009
The U.S. government's primary job is to provide for the common defense. The most important element to protecting vital national interests is the U.S. military, which reinforces America's diplomatic initiatives, acts to deter threats, and, when necessary, fights and wins the nation's wars. Two components determine a strong military: the quality of its service members and the equipment available to them. More Cash for Today's Forces For the past 36 years, America's military has operated as an all-volunteer force. As the commission responsible for recommending a volunteer force observed, forced military service through the draft was "intolerable" when compared with a volunteer system that aligned more distinctly with "our basic national values." Almost four decades later, the verdict is in: The U.S. military is the most highly trained, well- disciplined, and adaptive fighting force the world has ever seen. But an all-volunteer system doesn't come cheap: You get what you pay for. To recruit and retain the best force possible, as well as care for their families, the military has to provide a competitive array of pay and benefits. Although those who wear our country's uniform can never be fully compensated for their service, there are better ways to pay them.
Nuclear war. Thayer 6 [Bradley A., Prof of Defense and Strategic Studies @ Missouri State University, “In Defense of Primacy.,” National Interest; Nov/Dec2006 Issue 86, p32-37]
THROUGHOUT HISTORY, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power-- Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism: Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.( n3) So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States.
7 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Uniqueness 2NC Wall
Military recruitment is at its highest in six years – meeting its full goals – that’s 1NC Boston Globe.
Military recruitment so high standards are being raised. Emily Bazar, reporter in the News section, covering immigration and breaking news. stories tend to focus on state/local trends, assimilation issues and enforcement of immigration laws. USA Today 5/7/2009 , and Ben Jones. http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-05-07-national-guard-recruits_N.html
The Army National Guard witnessed a recruiting surge in small-town Waupaca, Wis., when the Zalusky sisters decided to enlist. The wave in Guard enlistments isn't unique to Waupaca. After years spent scraping for recruits, the Army National Guard has a surplus of soldiers nationwide. National Guard members respond to emergencies in the USA and serve combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.The reason for the growth may be as much pocketbook as it is patriotism. In this faltering economy, National Guard benefits that include monetary bonuses and tuition assistance are reeling in applicants, recruiters and recruits say. "There are more people calling me right now who are searching for jobs," says Master Sgt. Nathan Breese, a recruiter for the Arizona Army National Guard. "We're probably one of the only places still accepting applications." "Tons" of people are trying to sign up, Breese says, but his office rejects 75% because the National Guard has too many soldiers. The federal government provides up to $4,500 annually to help National Guard soldiers pay tuition and fees at accredited institutions, says Randy Noller, spokesman for the National Guard Bureau Standards, too, have been tightened as demand has grown. The maximum enlistment age has been reduced from 42 to 35, Breese says, and candidates with GEDs are no longer eligible.
Military recruitment is high now. Allyson SIMCOX 5 – 7 – 09 Staff Writer – the Lantern http://www.thelantern.com/media/paper333/sections/20090507Campus.html
Military recruiters have noticed an increase in enlistments and say the economy could be part of the cause. With job security being a concern among college graduates, many are turning to the military. More people in the Columbus area are accepting officer and infantry jobs, said Sgt. Edward R. Guevara Jr. of the U.S. Marine Corps. "Patriotism seems to be having an effect on those choosing the infantryman route, and the economy seems to be having an effect on those joining the officer ranks," Guevara said in an e-mail. In fiscal year 2007, the Marine Corps increased its enlistment goal from 175,000 to 202,000, Guevara said. Recruiters were given until 2011 to reach that goal, but Capt. Adrian Pirvu of the Marine Corps said they have already reached that goal. "Joining the military is more of a patriotic duty and should not be looked at as a last resort after losing a job," said Katelyn Evans, a senior in political science who has been a reserve officer for the Marine Corps since 2002.The U.S. Army is also ahead of schedule when it comes to meeting recruitment goals, said an Army first sergeant who spoke on the condition of anonymity. He said it usually takes Army recruiters until August or September to achieve their enlistment goal, but they are "on track to meet their accession mission early," he said. He was also more convinced of the economy's role in recruitment. "A lot of the guys that are college graduates are looking to become officers," he said. "But the majority of the people are just looking to get in and be able to get a paycheck to support their family."
8 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 A2 – Economic Recovery Non-Unique
1. Long timeframe – the U.S. military needs high quality recruits right now – that’s 1NC Eaglen evidence from June – prefer it – most recent statement on American readiness.
2. Economic recovery won’t result in more jobs which is the main reason people join the military. Don Lee July 2, 2009 LA Times, July 2 http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-jobless-recovery2-2009jul02,1,5303958.story
Reporting from Washington -- Even as the nation's economy begins clawing its way out of the worst recession in 60 years, there are growing signs that this recovery could come with an unsettling twist: The wheels of commerce may begin to turn again without any substantial boost in jobs. Not only is the national unemployment rate, now 9.4%, likely to climb into double digits later this year, but it is also expected to remain there well into 2010, economists say. That would prolong the misery of the unemployed, squeeze retailers and other businesses, and add millions of dollars in government costs and lost productivity. It could even threaten the recovery itself. Though it's common for the jobless rate to keep climbing for a time after economic output turns positive, the aftermath of the last two downturns, in 1990-91 and 2001, introduced the idea of a "jobless recovery." Even though the economy improved, many unemployed workers discovered that jobs as good as the ones they'd lost were almost impossible to find. This time, many economists say, there are new factors that could make the problem worse. Many more layoffs in this recession have been permanent, not temporary. And mass layoffs are continuing at a record pace; in May they cost nearly 313,000 workers their jobs. Since the recession began in December 2007, the U.S. economy has shed 6 million payroll jobs. That tally is expected to grow today when the Labor Department releases the June employment figures.
3. No economic recovery – job loss and tight consumer spending. PETER S. GOODMAN, NYT Staff Writer, July 2, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/business/economy/03jobs.html?bl&ex=1246766400&en=8550aaa276e4d846&ei=5087
The American economy lost 467,000 more jobs in June, and the unemployment rate edged up to 9.5 percent in a sobering indication that the longest recession since the 1930s had yet to release its hold. “The numbers are indicative of a continued, very severe recession,” said Stuart G. Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services in Pittsburgh. “There’s nothing in here to show that the economy and the market are pulling out of the grip of recession.” The Labor Department’s monthly snapshot of employment, released Thursday, challenged visions of a recovery already taking root. The numbers intensify pressure on the Obama administration to show returns on programs aimed at improving national fortunes — not least its $787 billion stimulus plan. Some economists are now calling for another dose of government spending to stimulate the economy, though the White House maintains that enough money is in the pipeline already. “Not all the recovery money has been put to work yet,” said the labor secretary, Hilda L. Solis. “We’re making progress.” But Ms. Solis acknowledged that joblessness was already much worse than the administration projected in January when it created its stimulus spending bill, suggesting then that joblessness would peak at about 8 percent. Asked why the unemployment rate is already much higher, Ms. Solis noted that much of the stimulus money was moving slowly, with construction projects in particular requiring time- consuming government permits. “Over all, it’s been a challenge,” Ms. Solis said. “We still have a ways to go.” That explanation echoed criticism that some initially leveled at the spending package when it was debated in Congress: many of the projects would take too long to get going, creating too few jobs in the near term. Still, Ms. Solis portrayed the program as a success. “We would have done much worse had we not put the recovery plan in place,” she said. In recent weeks, positive signs have emerged that automakers are beginning to see stronger sales, factories are gaining more orders, and housing prices have stopped falling in some markets. But the jobs report injected the sense that paychecks are disappearing so swiftly that consumer spending is likely to be tight, limiting economic activity.
9 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Uniqueness – Economy
The tanking economy has led to a massive surge in recruitment The Washington Post “A Worried Dad Ponders a Tempting Offer and the Ultimate Sacrifice” March 11, 2009. Lexis
The Pentagon announced Monday that 4,255 U.S. troops had been killed in Iraq and 589 killed in and around Afghanistan. And I still don't know for what. On the other hand, there have been roughly 2,400 homicides in the Washington area since 2002. And I don't know what that's all about, either, other than that most of the killing is concentrated in the District and Prince George's County, where I live, and involves mostly young African American men, like my son. Statistically speaking, he'd probably be safer in Baghdad than in parts of our nation's capital. Is that a rationalization, or has this tanking economy caused me to lose my mind? Four years ago, I'm almost certainly be trying to talk my son out of going to fight a war that was based on misinformation and outright deception. And other African American parents must have been doing just that, because black enlistment in the Army plummeted between 2001 and 2006 from 22 percent of recruits to 14 percent. A survey conducted by the Army in 2005 found that African Americans are more likely than members of other groups to "identify having to fight for a cause they don't support" as a reason for not enlisting. But that mind-set is clearly changing. Black enlistment is on the rise again -- from 14.9 percent in 2007 to 16.6 percent in 2008, according to a recent report by the National Priorities Project, a Massachusetts-based research organization that analyzes U.S. military recruitment trends. I asked the Pentagon if there was a reason for the increase and received this e-mailed response: "Youths' decisions to serve are not only influenced by the economy and wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, but just as importantly by those who help them make such significant decisions (such as parents, teachers, coaches and guidance counselors.)" But you've got to figure that right now it's the economy more than anything else, especially with unemployment rates among some groups of black men rivaling national rates in the Great Depression.
As unemployment continues to rise so does the amount of people joining the army The New York Times “MORE AMERICANS JOINING MILITARY AS JOBS DWINDLE” January 19, 2009. Lexis
As the number of jobs across the nation dwindles , more Americans are joining the military, lured by a steady paycheck, benefits and training. The last fiscal year was a banner one for the military, with all active-duty and reserve forces meeting or exceeding their recruitment goals for the first time since 2004, the year that violence in Iraq intensified drastically, Pentagon officials said. And the trend seems to be accelerating. The Army exceeded its targets each month for October, November and December -- the first quarter of the new fiscal year -- bringing in 21,443 new soldiers on active duty and in the reserves. December figures were released last week. Recruiters also report that more people are inquiring about joining the military, a trend that could further bolster the ranks. Of the four armed services, the Army has faced the toughest recruiting challenge in recent years because of high casualty rates in Iraq and long deployments overseas. Recruitment is also strong for the Army National Guard, according to Pentagon figures. The Guard tends to draw older people. ''When the economy slackens and unemployment rises and jobs become more scarce in civilian society, recruiting is less challenging,'' said Curtis Gilroy, the director of accession policy for the Department of Defense. Still, the economy alone does not account for the military's success in attracting more recruits. The recent decline in violence in Iraq has ''also had a positive effect,'' Dr. Gilroy said.
As unemployment continues to rise so does the amount of people joining the army The New York Times “MORE AMERICANS JOINING MILITARY AS JOBS DWINDLE” January 19, 2009. Lexis
''They are saying, 'There are no jobs, no one is hiring,' or if someone is hiring they are not getting enough hours to support their families or themselves,'' said Sgt. First Class Phillip Lee, 41, the senior recruiter in the Army office in Bridgeport, Conn. The Bridgeport recruitment center is not exactly a hotbed for enlistments. But Sergeant Lee said it had signed up more than a dozen people since October, which is above average. He said he had been struck by the number of unemployed construction workers and older potential recruits -- people in their 30s and beyond -- who had contacted him to explore the possibility. The Army age limit is 42, which was raised from 35 in 2006 to draw more applicants.
10 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Uniqueness – Generic
Many people are joining the military Watertown Daily Times 12/05/09, http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20090512/OPINION01/305129958
The armed services have met or exceeded their recruitment goals in the past few months, so much so that they can again be more selective in choosing their recruits. In order to meets its goals, the Army has been issuing waivers to those with criminal records or health problems who would have been unacceptable before. That is no longer necessary. The recession has made the armed services a more appealing alternative to job seekers at a time that the Pentagon is also increasing manpower levels to meet security needs.
A record number of people are joining the military as a result of the recession. Marc Heller, 03/12/09, Watertown Daily Times, http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20090512/NEWS02/305129956/- 1/NEWS
Officials say the proposal reflects the military's achievement of recruiting and retention goals this year ahead of schedule as well as an overall effort to rein in spending the administration considers unnecessary during the recession.
11 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Uniqueness – Generic
The recession and lack of opportunity for young people has driven recruitment The Boston Globe “Military academies see surge in applications” June 17, 2009. Lexis
The recession has already helped drive higher military recruitment and retention. Stronger student response to recruiting campaigns by the three academies, who want to increase minority ranks in the officer corps, comes as the recession has reduced college scholarships, and other financial aid. As of this week, the US Naval Academy was out in front with a 40 percent increase in applications compared with last year. Annapolis received about 15,300 applications for about 1,230 positions - the highest number of applications the academy has received since 1988. The US Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., and the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs also have seen increases. Applications are up 10 percent for the class of 2013 at the Air Force Academy, from 9,001 to 9,890 for 1,350 positions. West Point received 11,106 applications for the class of 2013, up from 10,132 the year before, or a 9 percent increase, said Colonel Deborah McDonald, director of admissions. Students who graduate from the academies are commissioned as officers in the military. In their applications, students tend to highlight their desire to take command or gain leadership experience, McDonald said. Students also mentioned economic reasons for wanting to attend, particularly in light of the recession's effect on college funds, McDonald said.
High unemployment has led to the largest surge of recruits since 2004 The Australian “Jobless flock to join military - AMERICA'S NEW ERA”January 20, 2009. Lexis WASHINGTON:
As the number of jobs across the US dwindles, more Americans are joining the military, lured by a steady pay cheque, benefits and training, reports said yesterday. The New York Times reported all active-duty and reserve forces were meeting or exceeding their recruitment goals for the first time since 2004, the year violence in Iraq intensified drastically. Pentagon officials said the trend seemed to be accelerating. The army exceeded its targets each month for October, November and last month, bringing in 21,443 new soldiers on active duty and in the reserves, the paper said. Recruiters also reported more people were inquiring about joining the military, it said.
The military is meeting its recruitment goals in the SQ Advertising Age “Are the Army's new marketing tactics a little too kid-friendly?” September 8, 2008
Something seems to be working. The Army has rebounded since it missed its recruitment goal in 2005 for the first time in five years by 7,000 soldiers. In January 2006, the National Defense Authorization Act was signed, providing a variety of payments, benefits and incentives designed to boost recruiting and retention. Since then, the Army has steadily come back, beating its goal by 645 recruits in fiscal 2006 and 407 recruits in fiscal 2007. (According to the National Priorities Project, that success has come with a price, as the Army has been accepting more recruits who don't have high-school diplomas. And the Army is issuing more moral, physical and medical waivers for new recruits.) Attracting 80,000 Since 2004, the recruiting goal has been 80,000. Mr. Boyce said the Army has met its recruiting goals every month of this fiscal year, as well as in months prior to this year. ``We have done that by continuing to evolve and change and refine our communications,'' he said. ``We've been looking at marketing carefully for a decade. ... We're an all-volunteer organization, where we have to recruit more than 80,000 people every year, and we have a force of 1.1 million. That is not something that one does by the seat of the pants.'' Mr. Weissman said regardless of the educational nature of the Army's new programs, they are still, at the core, branding exercises. ``Even more with the Army Experience Center than with the clothing line, you see the glamorization and romanticism of the military in a context that is targeted at kids who don't probably have broader vantage points to understand that complexity of military operations,'' he said.
12 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Uniqueness – Generic
The DOD has met their recruiting goals for the third straight year Daily News (New York) “WARRIORS ON TERROR City's patriots sign up for Army as military reaches recruitment goals” October 2, 2008. Lexis
NINE YOUNG men and women joined the Army yesterday in a Times Square ceremony - just days before the Defense Department announces it reached its recruitment goals for a third straight year. Two brothers from the Bronx enlisted together at the Times Square Recruiting Station, amid the hubbub of whizzing cars and hordes of pedestrians. "It's a family tradition for us - we wanted to become something more," said Javier Rios, 23, who joined with his 19-year-old brother, Joseph. Yosero Kim is a 17-year-old senior at Half Hollow Hills High School in Dix Hills, L.I. He'll head straight to basic training after he graduates. "I want to serve my nation," he said. The feds are expected to release enlistment numbers for fiscal year 2008 next Friday, but Army officials at yesterday's ceremony said they've reached their goal of 169,500 for active Army, reserves and the National Guard. "We are, as our slogan says, Army strong," said Gen. William Wallace, commander of the Army's Training and Doctrine Command center at Fort Monroe in Virginia.
Recruiting is so high due to the economy that the military is turning people away Daily News (New York) “MILITARY TURNING AWAY APPLICANTS” May 11, 2009. Lexis
SO MANY PEOPLE are flocking to the military during the current economic meltdown that Uncle Sam's recruiters are turning applicants away. "The people that we're picking are actually the cream of the crop," said 1st Sgt. Charles Bunyon, a New York National Guard recruiter based in the city. "It's more difficult to get in." It's a far cry from the critical shortage the armed forces faced four years ago, when the unemployment rate was 4.6% - a bit more than half of what it is now. Back then, Bunyon was offering hefty bonuses to get a soldier to sign up. He was also willing to accept medical waivers and overlook a minor criminal history in order to fill his ranks. More soldiers are also opting to stay in the service longer rather than look for private sector jobs. "People coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, they're saying 'Well, maybe I'll stay in because the economy is so bad,' " Bunyon said. "We're not losing as many as we thought." In fact, Bunyon said he's got about 60 more soldiers than his budget allows. For some New Yorkers, the prospect of steady income is trumping the inherent risks of the military - including deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan. "I'm fine with that," said Pvt. Kevin Franqui, 22, of the Bronx. "It's a stress on the family, but you get hazard pay, no taxes, separation pay. It's a lot of stuff. It adds up." A NewYork National Guardsman, Franqui said he's switching to the active duty Army because there are no other jobs out there. "I got a 9-month- old," he said. "I'm recently married. It's not just about me anymore." Amid the economic recession, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps are at - or over - their recruitment goals. "The economic downturn certainly has affected the recruiting situation, no doubt about it," said Dr. Curtis Gilroy, the Pentagon's director of accession policy. Not long ago, it wasn't unusual to have 12 or 15 people to fill 10 slots, he said.
13 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Uniqueness – Troop Quality
Because all military services are meeting or exceeding recruiting needs, quality of soldiers in military increase. Gerry J. Jilmore, Feb 10 2009, “Military Services Meet or Exceed January Recruiting Needs”, American Forces Press Service, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2182748/posts
All active duty U.S. military services and reserve components met or exceeded their January recruiting needs, Defense Department officials reported today. The Army signed up 9,658 new active-duty soldiers, 107 percent of its target number of 9,000 enlistees. The Navy signed up 2,948 new active-duty sailors, 100 percent of its target number. The Marine Corps signed up 3,720 new active-duty Marines, 109 percent of its target number of 3,406 enlistees. The Air Force signed up 2,600 new active-duty airmen, 100 percent of its target number. The active Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy also met or exceeded their retention goals for January, officials said. Guard and reserve forces met or exceeded their January recruiting needs. The Army Reserve signed up 3,223 new soldiers for 103 percent of its target number of 3,128 enlistees. The Navy Reserve signed up 712 new sailors, meeting 100 percent of its goal. The Marine Corps Reserve signed up 879 new Marines, for 155 percent of its target number of 567 enlistees. The Air National Guard signed up 896 new airmen, for 127 percent of its target number of 703 enlistees. The Air Force Reserve signed up 683 new airmen, meeting 100 percent of its goal. The Army National Guard signed up 4,913 new soldiers in January. Although that number is listed as 88 percent of the monthly goal, there’s more to the story, a National Guard Bureau official said. “It’s not just about the monthly recruiting goal,” Randy Noller, a Guard Bureau spokesman, said. “Right now, we are over our end strength and can slow down on recruiting.” The Army National Guard now has 366,009 soldiers in its ranks, which exceeds its authorized end strength of 358,200 troops, Noller said. Since the Army National Guard is recruiting fewer new soldiers each month, it can “increase the quality of people coming in,” Noller said. Attrition losses in all reserve components are within acceptable limits, officials said.
14 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link 2NC Wall
1. Default to whose controlling uniqueness – if the army is recruiting well now, only a risk that the plan trades off with recruits.
2. Increase in social services trades off directly with military recruitment – that’s 1NC Gifford evidence.
3. Social services prevent the culture dedicated to civic duty necessary to sustain military recruitment. Ronald R. Krebs Assistant Professor Department of Political Science University of Minnesota, 2006, “Myths of an All Volunteer Force” ttp://www.polisci.umn.edu/~ronkrebs/Publications/Myths%20of%20the%20AVF%20(complete).pdf
The challenge is to forge a political culture protective of liberty, dedicated to civic duty, supportive of solidarity, and committed to broad-based national citizenship. Neither liberalism nor militarized republicanism—the two citizenship discourses most familiar in the West— provide a sound foundation for meeting those goals. Yet we need not choose between the impoverished politics of liberalism and the potential exclusiveness of a militarized republicanism. We must seek to craft a non-militarized republicanism, in which the performance of public duty is prized but in which civic virtue is not limited to, nor even particularly exemplified by, military service. Creating a new non-militarized basis for civic virtue is an imposing political and philosophical task, given the centrality of the citizen-soldier tradition to Western citizenship discourse in general and US citizenship discourse in particular. And creating a political culture in which political obligations are respected and valued is daunting as well in prosperous industrialized countries. These tasks are among the most essential if Western liberal democracies are to overcome their sclerotic state. Yet our policy instruments for shaping political culture are blunt and their effects are poorly understood. The policy tools are limited in part because the underlying causal stories so tightly tie their hands. If the deeper causes lie in technological change (Shaw 1991) or economic development (Downing 2003; Inglehart 1997), then we should choose poverty or perhaps less discriminating (and more bloody) military technologies. If the cause lies in the generous provisions of the welfare state (Segal 1989), then we should dramatically scale back those entitlements, at tremendous social cos t. Compared to the option of accepting our liberal political culture, these are unattractive options, to say the least. One virtue of the alternative narrative suggested here— in which the rhetorical moves of national leaders, responding to perceived international exigencies, have persistent effects, which are then reinforced and reproduced by institutions and discourse—is that it suggests that we do not live in a world of material constraints alone. If rhetorical representations of reality create and continuously sustain political culture, the exercise of rhetorical agency can also transform that culture. Discourses of citizenship change when people, especially national leaders who enjoy an attentive media and are socially positioned to speak for the nation, talk in new ways about citizens’ obligations to the state and to each other. Such an opportunity to reshape American political culture may have presented itself after the attacks of 9/11, but President Bush, and many others across the political spectrum, failed to seize the moment. In other words, there is a profound role here for agency that alternative accounts fail to recognize. Calling for rhetorical entrepreneurs to grasp opportunities may not seem like a satisfying policy recommendation, but they are among the key mechanisms of cultural change— and they are all we have.
15 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Expanding Health Care
Lack of healthcare provides the military with incentives for recruitment. DEBORAH E. COWEN School of Social Sciences, Atkinson Faculty, York University, Toronto, Canada Citizenship Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2, 167–183, May 2006 http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=9&sid=a3be2330-c88c-4ff7-82e3- c86ed6b20bab%40sessionmgr3
Concurrent with this restructuring of military service has been dramatic transformation in the realm of welfare and citizenship. While broad notions of (civilian) entitlement to social services and security have been largely dismantled in the US, there has simultaneously been an expansion of citizenship rights for soldiers. Today , record numbers of civilians are living without health insurance, while the military is expanding health coverage for personnel and their families as incentive for service.6 Investment in education has also been militarized in a variety of ways. In order for schools to access funds under the president’s “No Child Left Behind” education initiative, they must release student information to DoD recruiters. Moreover, schools on military bases have been exempted from the 2002 Education Act, which makes federal funding contingent on strict performance indicators.
16 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Expanding Health Care
The military depends on superior access to health care in the armed forces as a recruitment tool. Brian Gifford The Camouflaged Safety Net: The U.S. Armed Forces as Welfare State Institution, Published by Oxford University Press Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 2006 13(3):372-399; doi:10.1093/sp/jxl003 http://sp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/13/3/372? maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
Nonetheless , it is accurate to consider military benefits as first and foremost employee benefits. This is particularly true of health care, the most common and by far the most valuable of all employee benefits (the total value of which exceeds even that of pensions, retirement plans, and profit sharing; see Employee Benefits Research Institute 2005). Yet, several features warrant Tricare’s inclusion as a social welfare entitlement for military families. First, Tricare is in fact a public program, with medical treatment funded by state resources and provided in large part by government employees. Second, all military personnel and their dependents are statutorily guaranteed health care benefits that most other workers and family members receive at the discretion of their employers. By contrast, in 2005 only 80 percent of civilian workers were eligible for employer health benefits.6 Third, Tricare’s eligibility rules and contribution structure privilege military families over other categories of beneficiaries. For example, military retirees and their dependents can also participate in Tricare, but only by paying enrollment and per-visit fees, as well as higher treatment costs from civilian providers. They also receive lower priority for care at military medical facilities, and reimbursement amounts are scaled back substantially when beneficiaries become eligible for Medicare. Active-duty members and their families thus have access to the military health system as an entitlement, whereas former military personnel retain a portion of their former health benefits in the form of a contributory indemnity program. While health care is an important social welfare benefit, more important for the characterization of the military as a social welfare provider— rather than merely a generous employer—is the direct cash and in-kind compensation for service members with families. Benefits such as family separation pay and housing and subsistence subsidies are practically nonexistent in the private or nonmilitary public employment sectors (Strawn 2004). Additional compensation for the costs of supporting an independent household is statutorily guaranteed to service members based on their family status alone. Family-related eligibility for cash entitlements underscore one of the main qualitative differences between military and civilian employee benefits. Yet family status is also a major contributor to the variation in military compensation and plays a far greater role in determining pay for military personnel than for civilian employees. As table 2 shows, in 2006 the additional housing and family separation compensation due to a mid-career enlisted person with dependents increases direct compensation by 12 percent. This change is consistent with Kilburn, Louie, and Goldman’s (2001) estimations that, in the 1990s, having dependents increased a service member’s monthly cash earnings by up to 11 percent of the mean value, due all or in part to the receipt of higher-value housing benefits. Table 2 also shows that when health benefits are counted, the additional compensation for family members raises total military compensation by over 25 percent. By comparison, because health care benefits are typically the only family-related benefits available to civilian workers, and because so few employers pay 100 percent of the costs of family health benefits, the average additional contribution made by private employers for family health care benefits increases the total compensation of a worker with the same direct earnings as a mid-career military service member by 10.3 percent.
17 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Expanding Health Care
Access to healthcare decreases military recruitment. BRIAN GIFFORD This study was conducted during a research fellowship with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Scholars in Health Policy Research Program, University of California, Berkeley/UC San Francisco August 22, 2005 The Spillover Effects of Military Communities on the Need for Health Care Safety-Net Services http://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/2005/RAND_WR299.pdf
This paper argues that large communities of military dependents and retirees – combined with their exclusive access to free or low-cost Department of Defense health care and insurance – alter local socioeconomic and labor market characteristics in ways that contribute to the need for health care safety-net services. Multivariate regression analyses indicate that areas with relatively large military communities have higher civilian medical uninsurance rates and lower rates of employer- offered health benefits, both of which contribute to pressures on providers of care to needy populations. Uninsurance rates grew more slowly in areas with relative declines in military populations, net of overall population change, but the presence or closure of military medical facilities was not a significant predictor of uninsurance rates or employer-offered benefits. These findings suggest that some of the larger systemic disadvantages of high uninsurance rates in some areas are attributable to political and strategic decisions about where military personnel serve and how they are compensated with health care benefits.
18 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Expanding Health Care Draft
The passage of health care would trade off with recruiting leading to a revival of the draft FLOYD NORRIS Floyd Norris is the chief financial correspondent of The New York Times, “Health's Gain May Be Army's Loss” May 30, 2008. Lexis
Call it the law of unintended consequences. When you fix one thing, it messes up other things. If the Democrats win the election this year, and are able to enact a health care plan that extends adequate coverage to all Americans, the loser could be the Army. Getting enough people to enlist could become a major problem for the next president. Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate, has already pointed out that Senator Barack Obama, the likely Democratic candidate, never served in the military. It remains to be seen how potent that will be as an issue, given the fact that the last four presidential elections have been won by the candidate with the less impressive military resume. But there is something else that distinguishes Mr. Obama from all recent candidates for the presidency. He would be the first presidential nominee to come of age after the draft was abolished in the administration of Richard M. Nixon. He never had to decide how to deal with the draft, and legally was under no more pressure to enlist than he was to go to medical school or become a bus driver. Joining the military was a career option like any other. And that has made it harder to put the Army together. Government polls show that the proportion of young people who think they might enlist is roughly half what it was in the late 1980s. The military has responded with more recruiters and higher cash enlistment bonuses, and has met its goals. A significant factor for many recruits, it turns out, is the military's generous health benefits for dependants. Michael Massing, writing in the April 3 issue of The New York Review of Books, tells the story of one part-time college student from Brooklyn, who was holding down two jobs but still going into debt. ''Meanwhile, he got married, his wife got pregnant, and he had no health care. From a brother in the military, he had learned of the Army's many benefits, and, visiting a recruiter, he heard about Tricare, the military's generous health plan.'' He enlisted. It seems a bit perverse that the incentives for a young person with children to join are greater than the incentives for his childless friend. But that is the way it is. All that could change if the push for some kind of national health insurance program were to be successful. It is true, of course, that Democrats have been talking about such things for generations. The failure of health care legislation during Bill Clinton's first two years in office left some viewing the issue as political dynamite -- good for a campaign but fatal to anyone who tries to pass a specific program. It is quite unclear how the government would pay for a comprehensive program, and no candidates seem eager to discuss ways to hold down health care spending. But if such a program were adopted, it seems likely that the military, and particularly the Army, would feel the immediate effect . To expand the Army, as all the candidates say they want to do, would require some other incentive for enlistment, particularly when the economy recovers. In the near term, it is possible that a recession will improve the military's recruiting success. The official unemployment rate is still low, but the proportion of Americans who expect the job picture to improve is at its lowest level in a quarter century, according to the Conference Board's consumer confidence survey. That survey shows that younger people are still more confident than older ones, but the confidence of both groups has fallen sharply this year. One partial solution to the negative effect on enlistment of a health care plan for all could be a new G.I. education benefit. Both the House and Senate have approved such a plan, but as part of the Iraq funding bill on which there are major differences. President Bush is opposed to the legislation, which its sponsors say would cost $50 billion over 10 years, and it is far from clear it will be enacted. The bill approved by the Congress would give enhanced education benefits to all veterans who spent three years in the military after Sept. 11, 2001. They would be eligible for full tuition at a public university, and about $1,000 a month for living expenses and more for books. Senator Jim Webb, a freshman Democrat and Vietnam veteran, is the principal Senate sponsor of the legislation. He argued -- with something less than precise data -- that passage of the bill would increase enlistment by 16 percent, and bring in more high-quality recruits who valued the education benefit. Both Senator Obama and his Democratic rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, support that bill. Senator McCain has proposed a less costly alternative that would provide better benefits to those who stay in the military longer. He may have a point. Last year about three-quarters of Army volunteers who completed their first term of enlistment, and nearly as many marines, chose not to re-enlist. Offering better education benefits after three years could encourage enlistment and discourage re-enlistment. If we get a real health care plan for all Americans, it might require something like the Webb bill -- or a very unpopular revival of the draft -- just to keep fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The backers of health care legislation do not want to hurt the Army, but that is what could happen.
19 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Housing
The military relies on its generous housing assistance being competitive with housing assistance available to the general population for recruitment purposes. Brian Gifford The Camouflaged Safety Net: The U.S. Armed Forces as Welfare State Institution, Published by Oxford University Press Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 2006 13(3):372-399; doi:10.1093/sp/jxl003 http://sp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/13/3/372? maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
All active-duty service members are provided with housing in-kind or with a nontaxable Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) when they are authorized to reside in a civilian residence or when military quarters are not available. Most single service members without dependents are required to reside in dormitory-style barracks. Service members with dependents are typically authorized to reside outside the barracks with their families and are provided with means to acquire housing adequate to their family’s needs. Thus, while housing is a universal entitlement for all service members, military institutions make extra financial and material housing efforts on behalf of members with family obligations. On larger military installations, free housing is available for military families; electricity and water service are also provided free of charge. Military family housing is subject to availability, however, and most installations have long waiting lists. For those not living in military quarters, BAH pays rental or mortgage stipends based on the average local cost of civilian housing. As with the size and quality of military housing, the amount of the allowance increases with rank, but also with dependent status. For example, a service member in enlisted grade 4 (E-4) will receive a smaller housing allotment than an E-5, but a married E-4 will receive more than a single E-4 with no dependents. BAH payments are withdrawn when a service member is offered and accepts military housing. The calculation of BAH rates are designed to minimize out-of-pocket expenses; cash allowances covered about 90 percent of service members’ average housing costs in 2002. Military housing benefits are thus unlike means-tested rental assistance programs (such as Section 8) that pay the difference between a fixed percentage of a tenant’s income (currently 30 percent) and an established fair market rental rate. Moreover, the number of families receiving BAH is not limited by the availability of public funds on hand, as is the case with the Section 8 program. Funding for military family housing benefits is also relatively generous compared with funding for civilian housing programs for the poor. Total expenditures for in-kind military family housing and excess BAH for military personnel with dependents were $4.8 billion in 2001.3 By comparison, spending on public housing, Section 8 housing, and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) totaled $32.6 billion. Thus, military family housing accounted for almost 13 percent of all family housing expenditures, even though active-duty military personnel made up only about 1 percent of the U.S. population (Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2004–2005).
20 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Immigrants
Immigrants join the army in the SQ because of a lack of jobs, money and educational opportunities The New York Times “With Charm and Enticements, Army Is Drawing Hispanic Recruits, and Criticism” February 9, 2006. Lexis
As Sgt. First Class Gavino Barron, dressed in a crisp Army uniform, trawls the Wal-Mart here for recruits, past stacks of pillows and towers of detergent, he is zeroing-in on one of the Army's ''special missions'': to increase the number of Hispanic enlisted soldiers. He approaches a couple of sheepish looking teenage boys in the automotive aisle and seamlessly slides into Spanish, letting loose his pitch: ''Have you ever thought about joining the Army?'' ''Did you know you can get up to $40,000 in bonuses?'' ''I'm from Mexico, too. Michoacan.'' In Denver and other cities where the Hispanic population is growing, recruiting Latinos has become one of the Army's top priorities. From 2001 to 2005, the number of Latino enlistments in the Army rose 26 percent, and in the military as a whole, the increase was 18 percent. The increase comes at a time when the Army is struggling to recruit new soldiers and when the enlistment of African-Americans, a group particularly disillusioned with the war in Iraq, has dropped off sharply, to 14.5 percent from 22.3 percent over the past four years. Not all Latinos, though, are in step with the military's recruitment goals. In some cities with large Hispanic populations, the focus on recruitment has polarized Latinos, prompting some to organize against recruiters and to help immigrants learn their rights. Critics say recruiters, who are under pressure to meet quotas, often use their charm and an arsenal of tactics, including repeated calls to a recruit, lunch at a favorite restaurant and trips to the gym. The Army also parades rigged-out, juiced-up Hummers wherever youths gather as promotional tools. ''We see a lot of confusion among immigrant parents, and recruiters are preying on that confusion,'' said Jorge Mariscal, a Vietnam veteran who is director of the Chicano/Latino Arts and Humanities Program at the University of California, San Diego, and is active in the counterrecruitment movement. While the military emphasizes that it works to enlist all qualified people, not just Hispanics, military experts say that bringing in more Latinos is overdue. Hispanics have long been underrepresented in the Army and in the military as a whole. While Latinos make up 10.8 percent of the Army's active-duty force, a better rate than the Air Force or Navy, they account for 14 percent of the population as a whole. Hispanics also make up the fastest-growing pool of military age people in the United States, and they are more likely to complete boot camp and finish their military service, according to a 2004 study on Marine recruitment by CNA, a research group that operates the Center for Naval Analyses and the Institute for Public Research. Recruitment studies show that Hispanics' re-enlistment rates are also the highest among any group of soldiers. ''They are extremely patriotic,'' said Lt. Col. Jeffrey Brodeur, commander of the Recruitment Battalion covering Colorado, Wyoming, parts of Montana and Nebraska. That many Latinos in the military are immigrants, or the children of immigrants, typically engenders a sense of gratitude for the United States and its opportunities, something recruiters stress in their pitch. Poorer and less educated than the average American, some Hispanics view the military as a way to feel accepted. Others enlist for the same reasons that may attract any recruit: the money, the job training, the education benefits and the escape from poverty or small-town life.
21 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Immigrants
The army targets immigrants for recruiting because they are vulnerable economically Belfast Telegraph “Pentagon targets Latinos and Mexicans for war on terror” September 10, 2003. Lexis
With the casualty rate in Iraq growing by the day and President George Bush's worldwide "war on terrorism" showing no signs of abating, a stretched United States military is turning increasingly to Latinos - including tens of thousands of non-citizen immigrants - to do the fighting and dying on its behalf. Senior Pentagon officials have identified Latinos as by far the most promising ethnic group for recruitment, because their numbers are growing rapidly in the US and they include a plentiful supply of low-income men of military age with few other job or educational prospects. Recruitment efforts have also extended to non-citizens, who have been told by the Bush administration that they can apply for citizenship the day they join up, rather than waiting the standard five years after receiving their green card. More than 37,000 non-citizens, almost all Latino, are currently enlisted. Recruiters have even crossed the border into Mexico - to the fury of the Mexican authorities - to look for school-leavers who may have US residency papers. The aim, according to Pentagon officials, is to boost the Latino numbers in the military from roughly 10 per cent to as much as 22 per cent. That was the figure cited recently by John McLaurin, a deputy assistant secretary of the army, as the size of the "Hispanic ... recruiting market", and it has also been bandied about in the pages of the Army Times. But while officials praise the willingness of Mexican Americans and other Latinos, the strategy has been denounced by anti-war groups as a cynical exploitation of impoverished young men who are lined up to be little more than cannon fodder. Rick Jahnkow, of the Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft, said: "They are vulnerable economically. That's why they are targeting them. These people are going to provide them with the means to carry out future wars." Recent statistics from the Pew Hispanic Centre, a non-partisan think-tank, show that Latinos are already doing the most dangerous combat jobs in disproportionate numbers. While they are still under- represented in the armed forces as a whole - they made up 9.4 per cent of enlisted men in 2001, compared with 13.4 per cent of the general population - they are over-represented in jobs that involve handling weapons (17.7 per cent). In Iraq, the first US casualty was a Latino non- citizen, a Guatemalan orphan raised in Los Angeles called Jose Gutierrez. Although a precise breakdown of ethnic numbers is not available, the Pentagon's list of dead and wounded has included dozens of Spanish names. At least 10 out of almost 300 dead have been non-citizens. An ethnic group has never before been the target of such a recruitment drive. In the Vietnam war, when the US military was still conscripting soldiers for compulsory service, the de facto characteristic of the men who did the fighting and dying was class. Poor people - whether black, white or Mexican - were much more likely to be drafted, and more likely to find themselves in the front lines. Now the military operates what Mr Jahnkow calls a "poverty draft" - selling itself as an attractive career option or stepping stone to further education in communities that have few other options. In the poorer parts of the country, army recruiters talk to children as early as primary school. At a predominantly Latino high school in east Los Angeles, students became so exasperated by the presence of army recruiters at careers fairs that they began a campaign to get rid of them with the slogan "students not soldiers".
22 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Immigrants
Immigrats are a target for recruiting Peachy 07 director of peace education Mennonite central committee http://x-polecanada.com/us/co/stories/Military_Recruitment.pdf
According to the U.S. Army Recruiting Command’s Strategic Partnership Plan for 2002-2007,“Priority areas [for recruitment] are designated primarily as the cross section of weak labor opportunities and college-age population as determined by both [the] general and Hispanic population .”Population studies show that Latinos are the fastest-growing group in the U.S .In fact, the Latino share of 18-year-olds in the U.S. population is expected to grow from 14% to 22% over the next several decades. The military keeps a close watch on these trends, as they have implications for recruitment. Indeed, military researchers look not only at immigration patterns, but also at the higher fertility rates of immigrant populations to help determine where to invest their recruitment resources. Dave Griesmer, a spokesman for the Marine Corps Recruiting Command, noted in an LA Times Article, “You’re not going to waste your resources if you’re in sales in a market that is not goingto produce...We certainly don’t discount any school. But if 95% of kids in that area go on to college, a recruiter is going to decide where the best market is. Recruiters need to prioritize.”18His comments were echoed by Kurt Gilroy who directs recruiting policy for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, noting that it is important to “maximize return on the recruiting dollar[because]the advertising and marketing research people tell us to go where the low-hanging fruit is. In other words, we fish where the fish are.”19In a Los Angeles Times article, Erika Hayasaki chronicles the differing attention military recruiters give to high schools in southern California. At Sylmar High School, attended primarily by low-income Latino students, military recruiters walk around freely during lunch. But 16 year-old Erika Herran comments: “I can’t even remember a time when I have seen a college recruiter on campus.” In contrast, San Marino High School in the affluent San Gabriel Valley neighborhood rarely sees recruiters. According to career center director Shanna Soltis, 98% of the graduates at San Marino attend college.21 Notes retired Army officer Richard I. Stark Jr., “Once you start [recruiting at a school heavily],it’s like a snowball. As more people from the school join the military, they go back on leave, walk around in their spiffy uniforms, brag about accomplishments. That generates interest by more recruits.” 22 As a group, Latinos are still under-represented in the military, but it is clear that the military is trying hard to close this gap.
23 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Job Growth
The military relies upon its otherwise unavailable offer of stable employment and benefits for recruitment. Deborah Cowen, prof @ University of Toronto, 2004 http://envplan.com/epd/fulltext/d22/d19s.pdf
Looking to the social and economic relations that constitute contemporary American militarism provides some essential context for interrogating this spectacularly terrorizing production (compare Katz, 2002). Specifically, the emergence and popularity of this bouncy rebel teen cadet, and her desirous identification with the military, need to be considered in the context of the complex race, class, and gender dynamics in the United States that have informed military recruitment strategies since the institution of an all- volunteer force in 1973. Recruitment rates are always closely tied to economic conditions, where the military benefits enormously from recessions and a working-class population eager for stable employment. Beyond this, the military's popular appeal has itself dwindled. Enloe cites three main factors for this decline: controversial operations, abuse of soldiers, and uncompetitive pay (2000, page 236). She also suggests that the leading causes of death for soldiers are likely to be a factor because they are not easily translated into the cultural capital of masculine bravado: the number one cause of death is accidents, and the number two cause of death is suicide (2000, page 236). Finally, while the direct and indirect links between the military coffers and the Disney production have not been investigated, Enloe reveals that one way the US military has responded to their recruitment shortage is through massive advertising campaigns. In 2000, the American military's annual recruitment advertising budget reached $86 million (2000, page 236).
24 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Job Growth
Lack of civilian opportunities drive the poor into the armed services St. Petersburg Times (Florida) “There are risks, but blacks can gain much from military service” January 31, 1991, Thursday, City Edition
Incensed by the prospect of blacks doing more than their fair share of dying in the Persian Gulf war, a growing number of black activists are calling for boycotting the military. They say that blacks' sacrifices won't change the inequality at home that caused the disparity in the first place, that a lack of civilian job opportunities amounts to a "racist poverty draft" masquerading as volunteer service. Blacks are 12 percent of the population but make up 30 percent of the armed forces. The military likes to pretend that blacks aren't channeled into service by lack of opportunity, but a fool can see that they are. But neither that truth nor disapproval of the gulf war should translate into a simplistic rejection of racial disparity in the armed forces. One reason is strictly subjective. I take great pride in the fact that the most powerful army in the world is headed by an impressive black man, Gen. Colin Powell, who used its opportunities to overcome humble beginnings. In fact, the blacker the military and the police, the less vulnerable I feel to the kind of madness the Nazis perpetrated against European Jews. Ask the World War II Japanese-American internees whether it can happen here. But more to the point, many poor blacks risk far less in the military than they do by remaining in dead-end civilian environments. It's a bit more of a crapshoot than most career choices once in a long while a gulf war does come along. But is that really any worse than, say, having worked a lifetime at the Hanford nuclear weapons plant and facing a slow rot from leukemia? Besides, large-scale casualties on the order of Vietnam or Korea are becoming increasingly unlikely, as the Cold War fades along with Americans' tolerance for protracted conflicts. The argument that blacks' best and brightest are being diabolically sacrificed to protect corporate profits is largely emotional. So far, more blacks die in drug turf battles and street crime each year than in all military operations since Vietnam, and there's still a chance that ground slaughter can be averted in the Middle East.
25 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Job Growth
When there is a lack of jobs, people go to the military. Roscoe Barnes III, Staff writer, 2008, “Military sees increase in recruits”, Public Opinion Online, http://www.publicopiniononline.com/ci_12718300?source=most_emailed
Lack of jobs, little money and uncertain futures have prompted a rise in the number of people signing up for military duty. Recruiters of all military branches are seeing a steady increase in the numbers. In some cases, the military has raised its entry requirement in order to select better applicants. "I have more people coming in right now than they have jobs available," Senior Airman Ronald Yarnell, Air Force recruiter, said Monday. "It's pretty much the same nationwide." The Air Force in particular has become more selective, Yarnell said. That's especially true with certain law violations. The new standard is applied so that only those with the best qualifications will enter. "It's always been a challenge to qualify. Now it's a little more of a challenge," he said. People with a record of law violations have always been an issue of concern for the Air Force. Now it has simply "cracked down on what it will allow and not allow," according to Yarnell. In terms of the economy, he said: "We have a lot more interest this year because of job force security the Air Force offers. The numbers are a little higher. We need the best qualified people to put in, because that is what this country is demanding." Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Levack, a U.S. Army recruiter, said he has seen a number of cases involving people who could not find jobs. Some were college students. Others were recent high school graduates.
26 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Job Growth
Lack of jobs means people join the military Tyson 05 washington post staff writer “youths are drawn into the military”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302528_pf.html
As sustained combat in Iraq makes it harder than ever to fill the ranksof the all-volunteer force, newly released Pentagon demographic data show that the military is leaning heavily for recruits on economically depressed, rural areas where youths' need for jobs may outweigh the risks of going to war. More than 44 percent of U.S. military recruits come from ruralareas,Pentagon figures show. In contrast, 14 percent come from major cities. Youths living in the most sparsely populated Zip codes are 22 percent more likely to join the Army, with an opposite trend in cities.Regionally, most enlistees come from the South (40 percent) and West (24 percent). Many of today's recruits are financially strapped, with nearly half coming from lower-middle-class to poor households, according to new Pentagon data based on Zip codes and census estimates of mean household income. Nearly two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median.
27 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Money
The military relies on otherwise unavailable offers for recruitment. Nick Turse, Asia Times Online, September 16, 2006 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HI16Aa03.html
To solve its wo/manpower woes, the US military has also enhanced its lure at home, in the form of "more recruiters and more financial incentives". In some cases, this can mean enlistment bonuses as high as $40,000 for those documented but poor Americans looking to put themselves directly in harm's way for three years as an army infantryman or explosive-ordnance disposal specialist - markedly more than 2005 per capita yearly income for black Americans ($16,874), Hispanics ($14,483) and even non-Hispanic whites ($28,946). According to a recent Associated Press report, the army is doling out yet more fistfuls of taxpayer dollars to entice troops to reenlist - "an average bonus of $14,000, to eligible soldiers, for a total of $610 million in extra payments". Marine re-enlistees seem to rake in the biggest bucks of all. This July, Major Jerry Morgan, who runs the Selective Re-enlistment Bonus Program, told Stars and Stripes that "the maximum bonus has been raised ... to $60,000 for marines" serving in five critical military occupational specialties. Add to these sums promised benefits of up to $71,424 and $23,292, for active duty and reserve personnel respectively, to "help pay for college" and you've got a potentially life- changing bribe, provided you still have a life when that college acceptance finally comes through.
28 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Poverty
Economic need is one critical factor in military recruitment. Sam Coleman, PhD, MSW 2007 http://www.socialactioncouncil.org/sasj/content/view/13/27/
We should first keep in mind how men and women are brought into today's armed forces. A look at the military's recruitment tactics sheds some light on the process of selection for the world's most perilous jobs. Economic need is one critical factor. Recruiters meet their quotas most easily in depressed regions of the country [7] and among minorities, especially Latinos. [8] A sluggish economy helps meet quotas, too. [9] Besides this "economic draft," the "solidarity draft" offers escape from the alienation of broken homes and atomized communities. [10] Recruitment advertising addresses this emotional need by depicting the uniformed services as a welcoming group united in a single purpose. Qualifications for recruits have softened also. Army officials have acknowledged that for over four years they have increased the number of waivers for recruits with criminal records and medical problems, with over 20 percent of new enlistees lacking a high school diploma. [11] Social work's ‘person-in-environment' paradigm raises a red flag here: before a new soldier even puts on his or her uniform, he or she could represent a vulnerable population, short on those resources that support emotional well-being. The Pentagon's budget devoted to luring the young into uniform is truly vast, approaching 592 million dollars in 2003 for advertising alone; [12] in 2005 the Department of Defense spent over $16,000 per recruit in inducements. [13] Sales tactics aim at young people's yearnings for prestige, achievement and recognition, adventure, and mastery of powerful technologies.
29 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Poverty
People with no other options join the military – as a way out of poverty. Cordula Meyer in Washington SPIEGEL ONLINE 2007 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18603.htm
"People with no prospects see the military as a way out of poverty," says Jorge Mariscal, a professor of Latino Studies at the University of California, San Diego. The uniform means money -- money for college and money to pay bills. "Immigrants are taken advantage of," says Bill Galvin, who is against the war and advises soldiers in Washington who want to get out of the military before their contracts are up. "Those who have no other options are the most likely to end up in combat."
Lack of jobs and social services lead to military recruitment Jorge Mariscal Prof @UCSD 2004 http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/295/1/36
Military recruiters are well aware that the economic situation for Latino youth is relatively bleak and have targeted Latino communities as one of the primary objectives for their efforts in coming decades. In the document "Strategic Partnership Plan for 2002-2007" written by the U.S. Army Recruiting Command, the architects of what we might call "niche recruiting" state: "The Hispanic population is the fastest growing demographic in the United States and is projected to become 25% of the U.S. population by the year 2025." The Plan goes on to explain: "Priority areas [for recruitment] are designated primarily as the cross section of weak labor opportunities and college-age population as determined by both [the] general and Hispanic population." Not surprisingly, the top two recruiting batallion areas according to the Plan are Los Angeles and San Antonio. The targeting of Latino youth for military recruitment was initiated by former Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera (now president of the University of New Mexico) who once declared that "Hispanics have a natural inclination for military service" and that the Army could "provide the best education in the world." The very notion that "Hispanics" constitute an ethnicity-based military caste would seem to belong to an earlier century, yet it is sustained by comments such as these made by Caldera and reiterated by the Mexican American commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who told Hispanic magazine: "When I became a soldier the ethics and the value system of the military profession fit almost perfectly with my own heritage. It made it very easy for me to adapt to the military value system. Given the overall economic context and the military’s interest in Latino youth, we can be sure that the enlisted ranks will fill up with increasing numbers of Latinos and Latinas. In 2002, a Pentagon spokesman told a San Antonio newspaper: "Hispanics represent approximately 22% of our recruiting market" (Express-News, 10/10/02). That means Latino youth are being targeted at about twice their rate in the general population. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Puerto Rico where high unemployment rates facilitate military recruitment efforts. In 2002, the Army initiated the Foreign Language Recruitment Initiative designed to give recent immigrants crash courses in English.
30 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Poverty
The poor join the armed services when there are no other options The New York Times “WAR IN THE GULF: THE TROOPS; Blacks Wary of Their Big Role as Troops” January 25, 1991. Lexis
But critics say the military is taking advantage of economic conditions in which the armed forces are the only chance for steady work that some black people have. They say that such enlistment amounts to a kind of poverty draft. "We join because we don't have anyplace else to go," Mrs. Muhammad said. Now that troops have been sent and a war has started, there is scarcely a black church or inner-city school where someone does not know at least one person, if not a lot of people, in the gulf. "There is a sense of impending disaster," said the Rev. George H. Clements, pastor of Holy Angels Roman Catholic Church in Chicago, a predominantly black church with 104 members or relatives of members in the gulf. Critics of the war fear that the black communities that have already lost great numbers of men to drugs and crime will now lose "the good ones" to war. Military analysts say, that unlike white enlistees who tend to be poorer and less educated than their civilian counterparts, most black men and women in the military are high school graduates or better from working- and middle-class families. "The stabilizing forces in our community are being drawn out," said Kathy Flewellen, a leader of the National African-Americans Against United States Intervention in the Gulf, a network with affiliated groups in six cities that was formed in Washington, to protest the war. The feelings of loss and dispair are mixed with a sense of satisfaction about General Powell. "Everytime he's on TV I feel proud," said James Exum, a Vietnam War veteran living in Chicago. "I feel confident with him there. I don't think he'll rush into ground action knowing that there are black men on the front lines. I feel a sense of comfort knowing that there's a black man calling the shots." Like so many black servicemen, Mr. Exum, a former army captain and Green Beret, enlisted right out of high school to escape the housing projects of Washington. "I didn't see that I had any options," he said. "I got many benefits, but I could have gotten killed." He survived commando raids that he led into North Vietnam and said he experienced a kind of multiracial fraternity he has not seen since the war. "When somebody got shot down, none of us asked if they were black or white or what religion they were," Mr. Exum said. "All we needed to know was, is the person American. It was the only time we lived up to what this country is all about." The recent debate over racial disparities in the military has stirred several efforts on Capitol Hill, and hearings on the topic in the coming weeks are being considered. And black antiwar groups across the country are pushing for improvements in vocational education to give black youths an alternative to the military. But many say that the demographics of a volunteer force, will not change, until the economic climate does. "Until the problems of society are solved where blacks have more opportunities, you almost by definition will have a disproportionate number of blacks in the military," said Mr. Binkins of the Brookings Institution. "Until then, we have to live with what's over there now."
31 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Poverty
The poor turn to the military because they lack other job opportunities The Boston Globe “Faster citizenship in uniform” February 19, 2009. Lexis
The Army, which is taking the lead on the new policy, hopes to use it to draw immigrants who have medical training or linguistic skills and familiarity with foreign cultures. The service is quick to point out that the new program is not a means of meeting overall recruitment goals. Until the recession hit, the Army could meet its goals only by admitting higher percentages of enlistees without high school diplomas or who need waivers for medical conditions or criminal records. The poor economy is expected to make recruitment easier, as young people turn to the military for job opportunities.
32 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Poverty
US recruits from poverty By Ann Scott Tyson Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, November 4, 2005; A01 “Youths in Rural U.S. Are Drawn To Military Recruits' Job Worries Outweigh War Fears”
Newly released Pentagon demographic data show that the military is leaning heavily for recruits on economically depressed, rural areas where youths' need for jobs may outweigh the risks of going to war. More than 44 percent of U.S. military recruits come from rural areas, Pentagon figures show. In contrast, 14 percent come from major cities. Youths living in the most sparsely populated Zip codes are 22 percent more likely to join the Army, with an opposite trend in cities. Regionally, most enlistees come from the South (40 percent) and West (24 percent). Many of today's recruits are financially strapped, with nearly half coming from lower-middle-class to poor households, according to new Pentagon data based on Zip codes and census estimates of mean household income. Nearly two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median. Such patterns are pronounced in such counties as Martinsville, Va., that supply the greatest number of enlistees in proportion to their youth populations. All of the Army's top 20 counties for recruiting had lower-than-national median incomes, 12 had higher poverty rates, and 16 were non-metropolitan, according to the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan research group that analyzed 2004 recruiting data by Zip code. "A lot of the high recruitment rates are in areas where there is not as much economic opportunity for young people," said Anita Dancs, research director for the NPP, based in Northampton, Mass. Senior Pentagon officials say the war has had a clear impact on recruiting, with a shrinking pool of candidates forcing the military to accept less qualified enlistees -- and presumably many for whom military service is a choice of last resort. In fiscal 2005, the Army took in its least qualified group of recruits in a decade, as measured by educational level and test results. The war is also attracting youths driven by patriotism, including a growing fringe of the upper class and wealthy, but military sociologists believe that greater numbers of young people who would have joined for economic reasons are being discouraged by the prolonged combat. The Pentagon Zip code data, applied for the first time to 2004 recruiting results, underscores patterns already suggested by anecdotal evidence, such as analysis of the home towns of troops killed in Iraq.
33 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Poverty
The U.S. recruits from black and latinos in poverty by Titus Peachey “Military Recruitment, Communities of Color and Immigrants” NO DATA GIVEN http://mcc.org/us/co/stories/militaryrecruitment.html Co-coordinator of Peace and Justice Ministries for Mennonite Central Committee’s U.S. program conducted research on defense industries
The All Volunteer Army is in effect, a poverty draft; that many Latinos and African Americans join the military because they have few other options, and that our wars are being fought by youth of color and youth from rural communities suffering from poverty and lack of opportunity. Why this perception? The history of slavery and the continuing racism experienced by people of color in the U.S. has placed many African Americans and Latinos in settings of poverty. In these settings, patriotism and duty do not draw young people to military service as they may in other communities. For example, according to U.S. Army surveys in 2003, 38% of Caucasian enlistees listed the desire to serve their country as the most important motivation for enlisting, compared to only 20% of African American enlistees. For some people of color, military service is a way to prove one’s loyalty and value to the nation in the hopes of receiving just treatment and acceptance in civilian life. For others, military service is a path toward personal advancement and success that is otherwise difficult to find in their home communities. The use of the military as a path to education and personal benefits is clearly shown in the following data collected by the Army in 2003.11 Reasons for Enlisting: Money for Education Benefits Pay Total African Americans 29% 12% 6% 47% Latino 24% 7% 4% 35% Caucasian 12% 6% 2% 20% As indicated above, nearly half of African American recruits and over 1/3 of Latino recruits list Clear economic indicators as their primary motivation for enlisting. The military appeals to this economic motivation by offering new recruits tens of thousands of dollars for education and job training. It is difficult for young people in settings of poverty who want further education or job training to refuse these offers. Unfortunately, the requirements to qualify for these education dollars are hard to meet, and relatively few recruits actually qualify and receive the full range of educational benefits. The realities of the job market also point African Americans toward the military. In 1999, the median household income of African Americans in the civilian population was $27,900, while African Americans in the military earned over $32,000. Impoverished rural white communities also lack opportunities for education and advancement, leading some white youth to enlist in the military as a way out of economic hardship. Indeed, an article in the New York Times (July 20, 2005) notes that soldiers from small town and rural areas of the U.S. are dying in Iraq at nearly twice the rate of soldiers from cities of 1 million or more. The writers believe the numbers suggest that the armed forces themselves are disproportionately drawn from impoverished rural communities. The disproportionate enlistment from rural areas is confirmed in an Army report, which notes that, “on a per capita basis, accessions are more likely to come from lower population density zip codes.”15 In this way the All Volunteer Army becomes a poverty draft. Even if current enlistees somewhat mirror their civilian counterparts in race and income levels, enlistees enter under vastly different circumstances. While some enter the military because they have chosen it from an array of meaningful opportunities, others enter the military because it is one of the only paths available out of a setting of poverty. For these enlistees, the realities of poverty and racism make military service an option they can hardly refuse rather than something they have freely chosen. The military is well aware of these realities, and ready to seize the opportunities they provide for recruitment.
34 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Poverty
The military relies on lack of social service availability to recruit Not Your Soldier.ORG 2005 http://www.notyoursoldier.org/article.php?list=type&type=3
The majority of military recruits come from below-median income neighborhoods . This pattern has been going on for a long time. It’s called the Poverty Draft, and it’s no coincidence . It’s the result of the unfair setup where opportunities are systematically eliminated in the communities that need them the most, while the military continues to get more and more funding. We have decrepit schools, bad housing, limited job options and poor healthcare. Despite our serious needs, the government spends more money trying to convince us to join the military than on basic human needs like education. The pentagon dropped $13,000 recruiting each person who enlisted. Compare that to the $1,115 that is spent on education per student, and you’ve got a pretty clear picture of the government’s priorities. Military recruiters are out in full force in the neighborhoods that are hurting the most, preying on the lack of opportunities. They want us to believe that the only option for us is to join up. They say we’ll be safer at war overseas than on our block. They’re promising college tuition, job training, and adventure. It’s working. As a result of aggressive recruiting, for the past three years, more youth from below-median income neighborhoods are joining than from other neighborhoods . In 2004, 71% of black recruits, 65% of Latino recruits, and 58% of white recruits came from below median income neighborhoods . The military’s own numbers are proving that fewer and fewer of people recruited have had access to a good education. The percentage of recruits who were regular high school graduates dropped from 86% in 2004 to 73% in 2006 . Unfortunately, we’re the ones who pay the price of the Poverty Draft setup. What recruiters don’t tell us is that 75% of blacks & 67% of Latinos report experiencing racial discrimination in the military. They skip over the fact that 1 out of 3 women in the military reported being raped.
35 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Poverty
The military relies upon poverty and job insecurity for recruitment. Kalamazoo News Channel February 23, 2009 - 5:08 PM http://www.wwmt.com/articles/percent-1359485-rate-number.html
(NEWSCHANNEL 3) - The outlook is bleak for working Americans. Nationally, the jobless rate is at 7.6 percent, the highest rate seen in the past 16 years. That number is expected to hit nine percent by the end of 2009. In Michigan, it looks even worse, we're at a 10.6 percent unemployment rate and leading the nation in job losses. Unemployment benefits are also at an all-time high nationally as nearly five million people are currently without work and receiving aid. As the number of people without work continues to climb, so does the number of people who turn to other options to ride out the storm of economic chaos. You may not see a 'now hiring' sign outside the Armed Forces Career Centers, but the military is always hiring, and there's probably no chance of any of the four branches going out of business. Thomas Guertler showed up at one such center on Monday after he'd exhausted all the other options. "Ain't no jobs out there," Guertler said. "The only thing that's hiring, sounds like to me." Guertler is turning to the U.S. Army, which trails only Walmart in hiring. Sgt. Matt Skidmore, the station commander in Battle Creek, says he's been seeing a lot more people like Guertler. "We always ask the question, why did you come in today," said Sgt. Skidmore. Sgt. Skidmore says that the answer is often the state's economy. "There's a lot of stability within the Army," said Sgt. Skidmore. Petty Officer Aaron Meschke, a Navy recruiter in Kalamazoo, agrees. "We have seen a lot of people come in here and they are looking for something more secure," said Petty Officer Meschke. The Navy can offered a guaranteed job for several years, guaranteed pay, guaranteed benefits and maybe even an enlistment bonus. "We have job openings for many different jobs," said Meschke. It was the prospect of jobs that brought Guertler to a recruiter in Battle Creek on Monday. For Guertler, the outlook outside the Army office isn't so positive. "To me, I think I got a better chance in here than I do trying to go out and find something else," said Guertler. Newschannel 3 also spoke with a man who recently found himself unemployed from a local auto dealership that went out of business. He told us he's interested in re-enlisting in the military.
36 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Poverty
Social services unique to the military are key for recruitment. Increased social services would directly trade off with recruitment. Rachel L tied for third place in the 2006 Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) Washington Office Annual Public Policy Essay Contest. http://peace.mennolink.org/resources/mccessay/07rachel.html
Currently , the United States Military is an All-Volunteer Army. This places heavy importance on recruitment - without it, we would lack the necessary number of troops. Recruiting has been, and continues to be, heavily concentrated in areas of poverty. Many factors influence this fact; the primary reason being that people of a lower social class are attracted to the economic and educational opportunities that accrue from joining the military. Young adults from communities of poverty view the military as their only option or path to success. A survey performed in 1999 by the National Defense Department discovered that the three most influential motivations to serving in the military were receiving money for college (33 percent of men and 39 percent of women), job training and experience (24 percent of men and 17 percent of women) and pay (13 percent of men and 11 percent of women) (Personal). The military offers recruits a substantial amount of money for both job training and college education. Many young adults are attracted to these opportunities, for which they would fail to find the resources in their own underprivileged communities. The National Defense Authorization Act states, "Most young men and women see postsecondary education as the key to prosperity and job security in America" (Personal). The three billion dollar plus industry doesn't want to waste its money where it isn't needed. Kurt Gilroy, director of recruiting policy for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, spoke on this targeting process. Gilroy stated that the military recruiters "maximize return on the recruiting dollar [because] the advertising and marketing research people tell us to go where the low-hanging fruit is. In other words, we fish where the fish are" (Peachey). It makes sense that the military should choose to market "where the fish are." The philosophy behind any type of advertising or recruiting is to focus on locations where the most possible candidates for the product would be. Recruiting on a college campus would be futile. What is the incentive of any well-off college student to join the military, leave their campus, and fight in a war? It seems as if the military is simply targeting towards their most likely applicants. In order to fix the unfair selectivity that takes place during military recruitment, the United States must create programming that reaches out to impoverished youth. One Vietnam Veteran, John Cory, proposed the question, "For every $1 we spend on education in this country, we spend $6 on the defense industry. Are we really six times more dedicated to killing than educating?" (Cory). It would seem to be prudent for our government to focus moneys on helping the poor. Certainly we as Mennonites would support such a move. After all, peace and justice isn't just a matter of avoiding war. It is also a matter of creating economic opportunities for all people. Regrettably this approach to economic development is getting short shrift. In fact, if anything, our governments, both federal and state, have engaged in a systematic decrease in social programs for the poor. These governments have cut welfare programs, forced single parents to work full time, and reduced student aid in higher education. The domestic needs of the lower class have been forgotten and overlooked more and more in recent years.
Poverty is a key factor in military recruitment. Bonnie Weinstein, 05/08, Socialist Viewpoint, http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/sepoct_08/sepoct_08_06.html
Escalating poverty and military presence in our schools will certainly steer students toward the military. In fact, the military now recruits 30 to 50 percent of the students that complete the JROTC program. And those who enlist outside of JROTC are propelled to join the military because of the lack of other opportunities available to them—in effect, creating an “economic draft.”
37 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Social Services
An increase in social services would directly trade off with military recruitment. Adam Tenney, December 2005, http://www.yclusa.org/article/articleview/1712/1/305/
What if someone were to offer you stability, employment, a college education, community, personal development and a chance to see the world? What would you say? What if in your community, there were no jobs, the public schools sucked, you did not have enough money for college and your future was uncertain? Would this influence your decision? This scenario gets played out everyday across the country between young people and military recruiters. Military recruiters by the thousands are sent into schools and communities to lie, persuade and coerce young people into signing up for the military. Billboards are posted showing men and women making a difference and serving their country. They make promises of jobs, stability, education and sense of belonging that many young people want. They convince young people that war is bloodless, that bombs are precise and that there are few casualties and wounds. This deliberate advertising scheme is part of what is called the poverty draft. The poverty draft is a policy that targets young people in low-income communities for military recruitment. The military uses the rampant poverty and uncertain future of working class young people as a way to entice them into military service. The poverty draft has a racist edge to it. The military specifically targets schools and communities that have large populations of African American and Latino/a youth. Under-funding Our Schools Two things create the poverty draft. First, is the purposeful and deliberate under-funding of our public schools, jobs for youth and other social programs to give money to corporations, the wealthy and the military. The Bush Administration claims there is no money for programs like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and employment programs, yet there is always money for his tax breaks for the rich and to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to a budget breakdown by the War Resisters League, our government currently spends nearly $991 billion dollars on the military while at the same time only spends $73 billion on education. This includes money for both public schools and higher education. Bush has also cut funds for youth jobs. Programs that once would employ young students over the summer and provide incentives for businesses to hire youth are gone. Today young people are unable to find good-paying jobs. The jobs that are left are service sector jobs that pay low wages and are non-union. These “McJobs” were once a place for high school students to make some extra money. Instead, these dead-end, low wage jobs have become the only employer in poor communities. By pulling money from education, social services and jobs for young people Bush has put our future on an uncertain path. Young people don’t know what type of job they will have, don’t know how they can pay for college and don’t know if they can make a future for themselves. This precarious situation is what the military uses to find new recruits. Military Advertisement The second part of the poverty draft is aggressive recruitment campaigns to lure young people into the military. The military spends nearly $3 billion dollars a year on recruitment advertisement. They use things from youth culture like video games, cars, music and concerts as way to approach young people and make military service seem “cool” and “sexy”. They use targeted advertisements in youth magazines, at theatres and on billboards to attract young people. They send out recruiters to lurk around malls and shopping centers to harass young people into signing up. No Child Left Behind Schools, that should be a place of education and not war, have been invaded by the military, too. The passage of No Child Left Behind opened the door to military recruiters. NCLB mandated that public schools turn over the names of students to military recruiters if they wanted to be eligible for federal dollars. Until activists began educating young people that they could remove their names from the list, schools were giving their names away to the military. Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) is another part of the militarization of our schools. School districts use JROTC programs as a way to find new teachers and as a place to put students because of a lack of classes. The instructors in the JROTC programs do not have a teaching degree and do not provide skills students need to build a future. The JROTC programs are advertised as a way to save schools but are in fact a massive financial burden. According to the JROTC website, there are currently there are 1,562 JROTC units in operation with an enrollment of over 274,000 students. Local school districts pay $152,000 a year for each JROTC unit. School districts could be using this money to buy textbooks, hire new teachers and fix up our schools. ASVAB Another program that the military uses to recruit students with is the Armed Services Vocational Assessment Battery Test (ASVAB). The ASVAB test is given out in 14,000 schools across the country to gauge a student’s vocational interests. They can use student interest and aptitude in different areas as ways to talk to them about the military. Students are told the test is mandatory for them to take. School administrators push poor students and students of color to take the test, while wealthy and white students study for the ACT and SAT. The Profits of War Choosing military service is literally a life or death situation for young people. There have been over 2,000 American men and women killed in Iraq, countless Iraqi civilian deaths and over 15,000 wounded. With 58% of soldiers killed in Iraq were between the ages of 18 and 25, it is clear that the lives of young people are being snuffed out the line in order to pay the price of Bush’s war. With odds like these, why are we pushing young people into war? Because corporations make a profit from war. This is what is known as “war profiteering”. Corporations like Lockheed Marten, General Electric, Halliburton and Boeing are tied to the military through contracts to do work. The federal government pays each of these corporations to perform different tasks for the military ranging from building bombs and fighter jets to “reconstruction”. If there were no more wars and a smaller military, these corporations would lose their multi-billion dollar contracts that are a major source of money. These corporations have a vested interest in seeing more wars and continued military grow. There is an Alternative If we want to end the poverty draft and stop the military from preying on working class young people and youth of color, we must create real alternatives to military service. We must fully fund our public schools and colleges so that every person has access to quality education. We need job fairs, college recruiters, more guidance counselors and other resources that allow students to build a positive future for them that does not require them to serve in the military. We need more money for college grants so that college graduates can make a living after graduation and not have large student debt. Congress needs to pass the Student Aid Reward Act (STAR) that would give more than $17 billion in need-based student financial aide. We need more money for college recruitment and retention programs for working class youth and youth of color. By providing these services, young people will no longer have to make the decision on whether or not it is worth possibly being killed in order to pay for college. We must rebuild our communities so there is quality housing for everyone and union jobs that pay a living wage. We must build job training and recruitment centers so that people can gain the skills they need to find employment.
38 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Social Services
Military social services, necessary to recruit, directly trade off with civilian social services. DEBORAH E. COWEN School of Social Sciences, Atkinson Faculty, York University, Toronto, Canada Citizenship Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2, 167–183, May 2006 http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=9&sid=a3be2330-c88c-4ff7-82e3- c86ed6b20bab%40sessionmgr3
The legal status of soldiers and citizens has been continuously reworked since the termination of conscription. President Carter reinstated the Selective Service registration requirement for males between the ages of 18 and 25 in the summer of 1980. Faced with mass non-compliance and their own unwillingness to seriously enforce the law against such opposition, successive administrations have resorted to group-specific or “targeted” drafts. As a precondition for eligibility for Title IV Federal Student Aid (Solomon Amendment of 1982), students are required to register. Appointment to most federal jobs requires registration (Thurmond Act of 1985). In 1987, Congress authorized the “Health Care Personnel Delivery System”, which, should it be activated, requires mass registration of health care workers, and in 2003, Selective Service began planning a draft of linguists, IT workers, and engineers. Finally, since 2004, in the face of Iraq War personnel shortages, the “Stop Loss” program has effectively created an active draft of former armed forces personnel with an involuntary call-up of 5,600 former soldiers. Transformations in the political status of citizens and soldiers in recent years have also been profound. There are currently more than 37,000 foreign nationals serving in the US military and in July 2003, an executive order from the president made non-citizens in the military eligible for expedited citizenship applications retroactive to September 2001. These changes are both a practical necessity in order to attract enough recruits, but are also part of a broader restructuring of the social rights of citizenship. In fact, the expansion of military welfare is an important part of the reintroduction of notions and practices of a deserving and undeserving poor. The military has long been an institution of social welfare (Titmuss, 1958; Rimlinger, 1971; Skocpol, 1992; Kirwin, 2001; Dutton, 2002; Esping- Anderson, 2002). More specifically, however, the particular kind of exchange of social services for military service has long operated as something more akin to what is now known as workfare (Cowen, 2005). The GI Bill is probably the most obvious example here, although there are interesting later initiatives in the US context too. As Segal (1989, p. 91) outlines, Defense Secretary McNamara initiated “Project 100,000” in 1966, designed to bring in 100,000 “underprivileged” youth who had previously been rejected from military service because they had failed minimum entrance requirements. He explains how the program aimed to “teach these youths skills, discipline, and selfconfidence and would thus reduce unemployment, raise earning potential of applicants, and make them eligible for veterans’ benefits—welfare programs that did not carry the stigma of benefits programs that did not involve service” (Segal, 1989, p. 91). However, while the military dimensions of social policy and welfare are a fundamental aspect of the historical constitution of social citizenship and the “post-war” welfare state, welfare programs became increasingly disentangled from the military in the decades after World War II. In 1950, veterans programs and civilian education programs each accounted for approximately 28% of the federal public welfare budget. Yet, by 1960 veterans program budgets had declined 10% while civilian budgets reached 37% of expenditure in this area (Segal, 1989, p. 91). Anti-war activists and civil rights and women’s rights movements further escalated this “de-militarization” of welfare in the US through the 1960s, encouraging further expansion of civilian services. As Segal (1989, p. 90) explains, “previously neglected interests, some of which had been brought together by their common opposition to the Vietnam War, became mobilized as social movements seeking access to various citizenship rights and entitlements. Most notable were the civil rights movement and the women’s movement, which demanded and received increased educational and employment opportunities for their constituencies”. These struggles against militarism and for the expanded rights of groups previously excluded from social welfare entitlements helped galvanize the shifts that eventually prompted Moskos to see the US as having something of a “GI bill without the GI”. By confronting the implicit partiality of the liberal citizen and the multiple and relational exclusions upon which he relied, these social movements would also help provoke the crisis of the Keynesian state. Nevertheless, while the crisis was brought on in part through the mobilization of progressive groups and the agendas of various social movements, it was neoliberal ideas, people, and programs that rose to assume governing positions. A form of “revanchism” (cf. Smith, 1996) against the gains made by these groups catalyzed the emergence of both particular neoliberal figures and their broader political logics. Ronald Reagan’s 1966 gubernatorial victory in California, for example, was won in large part through his defense of the right of “homeowners in a ‘free society’ to ‘discriminate against Negroes’ if they chose” (Foner, 1998, p. 315). This event emerged in response to an earlier 1963 law that banned racial discrimination in the housing market.
39 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Social Services
Welfare benefits and entitlements decrease incentives to join the military. Ronald R. Krebs Assistant Professor Department of Political Science University of Minnesota, 2006, “Myths of an All Volunteer Force” ttp://www.polisci.umn.edu/~ronkrebs/Publications/Myths%20of%20the%20AVF%20(complete).pdf
There are of course other plausible explanations for the end of the draft and the embrace of liberal citizenship. Martin Shaw and others have argued that advancing military technology privileged quality over quantity and led to the abandonment of conscription, first in “offshore” states, like Britain and the United States, and eventually in Europe as well (Burk forthcoming; Janowitz 1983, 57; Shaw 1991; 1994, 61-64). Brian Downing has suggested that the rise of liberal individualism has had much to do with unprecedented prosperity: wealthy societies tend to have little appreciation of sacrifice and to be skeptical of authority (Downing 2003; Janowitz 1975, 436).29 Ronald Inglehart similarly has maintained that economic development fostered the spread across the global North of postmaterialist and postmodern values that prize selfexpression more than deference to authority and deem hierarchical and centrally controlled bureaucratic institutions less normatively acceptable (Inglehart 1997): sustaining broad-based military conscription is obviously difficult when such values are prevalent (since there is no institution more hierarchical or authoritarian than the armed forces, and the draft is inherently coercive), as are notions of civic obligation (which presume that individuals have duties beyond expressing themselves). David Segal has maintained that the growth of the welfare state, and thus of benefits and entitlements, nurtured a citizenship premised on rights and devalued a citizenship requiring the performance of duties (Segal 1989, chap. 4).30 These various alternative accounts share a focus on long-term processes of social change, and all would see the introduction of the AVF more as product than as cause.
40 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Social Services
Social services prevent the culture dedicated to civic duty necessary to sustain military recruitment. Ronald R. Krebs Assistant Professor Department of Political Science University of Minnesota, 2006, “Myths of an All Volunteer Force” ttp://www.polisci.umn.edu/~ronkrebs/Publications/Myths%20of%20the%20AVF%20(complete).pdf
The challenge is to forge a political culture protective of liberty, dedicated to civic duty, supportive of solidarity, and committed to broad-based national citizenship. Neither liberalism nor militarized republicanism—the two citizenship discourses most familiar in the West— provide a sound foundation for meeting those goals. Yet we need not choose between the impoverished politics of liberalism and the potential exclusiveness of a militarized republicanism. We must seek to craft a non-militarized republicanism, in which the performance of public duty is prized but in which civic virtue is not limited to, nor even particularly exemplified by, military service. Creating a new non-militarized basis for civic virtue is an imposing political and philosophical task, given the centrality of the citizen-soldier tradition to Western citizenship discourse in general and US citizenship discourse in particular. And creating a political culture in which political obligations are respected and valued is daunting as well in prosperous industrialized countries. These tasks are among the most essential if Western liberal democracies are to overcome their sclerotic state. Yet our policy instruments for shaping political culture are blunt and their effects are poorly understood. The policy tools are limited in part because the underlying causal stories so tightly tie their hands. If the deeper causes lie in technological change (Shaw 1991) or economic development (Downing 2003; Inglehart 1997), then we should choose poverty or perhaps less discriminating (and more bloody) military technologies. If the cause lies in the generous provisions of the welfare state (Segal 1989), then we should dramatically scale back those entitlements, at tremendous social cos t. Compared to the option of accepting our liberal political culture, these are unattractive options, to say the least. One virtue of the alternative narrative suggested here— in which the rhetorical moves of national leaders, responding to perceived international exigencies, have persistent effects, which are then reinforced and reproduced by institutions and discourse—is that it suggests that we do not live in a world of material constraints alone. If rhetorical representations of reality create and continuously sustain political culture, the exercise of rhetorical agency can also transform that culture. Discourses of citizenship change when people, especially national leaders who enjoy an attentive media and are socially positioned to speak for the nation, talk in new ways about citizens’ obligations to the state and to each other. Such an opportunity to reshape American political culture may have presented itself after the attacks of 9/11, but President Bush, and many others across the political spectrum, failed to seize the moment. In other words, there is a profound role here for agency that alternative accounts fail to recognize. Calling for rhetorical entrepreneurs to grasp opportunities may not seem like a satisfying policy recommendation, but they are among the key mechanisms of cultural change— and they are all we have.
41 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Social Services
There is a direct tradeoff between social services offered and the number of people in the military which relies on social services to recruit. Brian Gifford Sociologist Why No Trade-off between “Guns and Butter”? Armed Forces and Social Spending in the Advanced Industrial Democracies, 1960–19931 RAND Corporation, American Journal of Sociology, 2006 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/506416
In effect, this amounts to an expanded dimension of public social provision, one that considers the labor market and social welfare impacts of the military as a state institution that (1) alters a defined portion of the population’s relationships to the labor force and the polity, and/or (2) latently achieves the social welfare objectives of formal welfare state programs for such a group, in the course of pursuing stated primary objectives. At bottom, then, I proceed from an institutional conception of states, viewing them as more than either arenas of contestation or actors with varying capacities to set and implement policy, but as collective actors at the top of political hierarchies (Skocpol 1985; Lehman 1992). The state’s authority over society imposes interdependence among seemingly distinct policy domains and sets preconditions for organized social action within them. Within this perspective, the state’s military priorities affect its social welfare priorities to the degree that military postures alter service members’ (and their family members’) relationships to both the labor market (by removing them from the competitive workforce entirely, even if only temporarily) and government programs designed to mediate social and market outcomes (by providing services such as housing, health care, and family allowances internally). Thus through the military, some states may achieve “social protection by other means” (Huber and Stephens 2001, p. 5; see also Castles 1996). I argue that net of military spending , large armed forces relative to the general population (sometimes referred to as the military participation ratio, or simply MPR) reduce pressures on states to provide social welfare benefits aimed at the general population. This occurs as large numbers of service members reduce pressure on labor markets and decrease demands for those social programs designed to ameliorate poverty and market failure (Mintz 1989). If used by states as a countercyclical mechanism for regulating growth and employment, or by members of the population as an alternative to the competitive labor market, military personnel policies may depress the perceived need for social programs aimed at the general population. The degree to which armed services themselves dedicate some portion of their own budgets to the social welfare needs of a large military population may obscure the range of criteria upon which state benefits are awarded. The conferral of benefits on the basis of service to the state itself, or one’s “self-sacrifice” for the “common good,” may be of a different quality than those based on family status, employment history, or economic hardship.
42 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Social Services
Benefits for military members that are crucial to recruitment directly trade off with social services for other groups. Brian Gifford Sociologist Why No Trade-off between “Guns and Butter”? Armed Forces and Social Spending in the Advanced Industrial Democracies, 1960–19931 RAND Corporation, American Journal of Sociology, 2006 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/506416
Second, a decreased political will to satisfy outstanding social welfare needs may accompany military-related gains in overall social well-being. Armed forces are instruments of state power, but soldiers are also powerful cultural symbols, whose service to the nation obliges both the state and civil society to act on their behalf (Pateman 1989; Janowitz 1991; Feinman 2000). Social welfare benefits provided to current and former military personnel (such as family allowances, housing, and medical care) are thus legitimated as either national security prerogatives or rewards for individual conduct, rather than primarily as insurance against market or social failure (see, e.g., Skocpol 1992). Yet the satisfaction of military personnel’s needs (on any scale) on the basis of reciprocity or the state’s strategic interests may undermine efforts on behalf of other groups whose demands upon the state are legitimated through the more contentious discourse of “social rights.” Thus while relatively large armed forces may regulate the aggregate need for state benefits, the a priori “worthiness” of military personnel may also contribute to popular and political perceptions that the unmet needs of other groups such as workers, mothers, or the poor are less deserving of government intervention.7 What is more, the administrative and political strength of military institutions may assist current and former service members in receiving favorable consideration from the state, to the detriment of other segments of society (Amenta and Skocpol 1988; Kelly 1997). As both potent political symbols and members of a well- positioned interest group, armed forces not only absorb finite resources, but also create discursive obstacles to other groups seeking benefits from the state.
43 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Social Services
Benefits that can compete with external services play a central role in military recruitment. Brian Gifford The Camouflaged Safety Net: The U.S. Armed Forces as Welfare State Institution, Published by Oxford University Press Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 2006 13(3):372-399; doi:10.1093/sp/jxl003 http://sp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/13/3/372? maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
Since President Richard Nixon ended conscription in 1973, cash and nonmonetary incentives have been central to the military’s efforts at recruiting and retaining a large labor force in the face of competition with the private sector for employees (Moskos 1986). These incentives have included not only bonuses, education benefits, and choices of job specialties and duty stations but also implicit promises of income and health security for service members and their dependents.1 In 2003 the armed forces had roughly 1.4 million active-duty members, 85 percent of whom were men. Approximately 51.4 percent were married,2 and 43.4 percent had at least one child. In all, 56 percent of active-duty military members had family responsibilities. Put another way, the DoD provided cash and in-kind benefits to 793,424 military families and roughly 2.7 million family members (Military Family Resource Center 2003). The basic compensation for active-duty service members consists of a salary determined by an individual’s rank and years of service; a fixed subsistence allowance; and a housing allowance, the value of which is determined partly by an individual’s rank. In addition, all service members receive free medical care. In practice, the majority of service members receive their subsistence and housing compensation in-kind—that is, they are provided with meals in a military dining facility and a room in the barracks and receive no (or only token) compensation for these items. Military regulations require, however, service members to provide support for their dependent family members (see, for example, Army Regulation 608–99). For this reason—and for recruitment and retention purposes— the military provides additional housing, health, family separation, and subsistence benefits for all married service members or those with dependent children, regardless of rank, job performance, or prior disciplinary action. Military installations also subsidize many consumer expenses, such as groceries and child care. These programs form the core of the military welfare state.
44 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Social Services
Expanded entitlements make military benefits worthless for recruitment efforts. Brian Gifford The Camouflaged Safety Net: The U.S. Armed Forces as Welfare State Institution, Published by Oxford University Press Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 2006 13(3):372-399; doi:10.1093/sp/jxl003 http://sp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/13/3/372? maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
While space constraints exclude a detailed analysis of the political and legal histories of contemporary military social welfare benefits, such an examination may underscore the relative importance of polity members to the development of similar programs aimed at different groups. For example, health care for military dependents developed incrementally within a framework of existing institutional resources for delivering care to service members. Expansions of the program would thus be expected to activate a different set of bureaucratic interests than did the establishment of publicly funded health programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, or SCHIP. High-ranking officers and Department of Defense officials may have taken on roles elsewhere played by labor representatives or advocates for the poor. Actors may also invoke a diversity of political frames and ideological bases for claims, given the varying levels of political and social esteem enjoyed by target recipients. The development of the U.S. welfare state itself, then, may have involved a broader array of political actors than has been previously recognized. Given that military social welfare benefits have characteristics resembling both social insurance and social assistance programs, they provide an example of how social arrangements that may latently deliver benefits associated with one category of programs may nonetheless produce outcomes typically associated with the other. Military social welfare benefits thus confound attempts to characterize the U.S. welfare state as either "bifurcated" or uniformly "liberal ." Including the military with other institutions, policies, and programs that achieve social welfare ends by intervening in social and labor market processes reinforces conceptions of the U.S. welfare state as composed of an array of social welfare strategies . Such a perspective suggests a more well rounded conception of the American model of public social provision and may lead to more fruitful strategies for comparing welfare states across nations. Although appropriate data are not yet readily available, future comparative analyses may reveal whether the United States spends a greater percentage of its defense budget on social welfare benefits than other Western industrialized countries spend for their own military personnel. Different nations induct personnel into their armed services under disparate labor market, social, and political conditions and thus employ a variety of diverse recruitment strategies. These differences complicate direct comparisons of expenditures on military social welfare benefits and obscure the true measure of public social provision. Yet we would still expect those nations identified by established welfare state "regime" conceptualizations as having comprehensive, rights-based social policies to dedicate a smaller percentage of their defense budget to social welfare functions—either because service is compulsory, and thus requires no economic inducement, or because universal entitlements make military social welfare benefits of little value to recruitment efforts. For example, because the Netherlands offers relatively generous, inclusive welfare state benefits (but has maintained a volunteer military since the early 1990s), we would expect a greater percentage of its defense spending to go toward purely "military" purposes than occurs in the U.S. defense budget. By the same token, military social welfare benefits enjoyed by Dutch military families should affect their economic well-being less dramatically than those in the United States. It is impossible to operationalize these issues with the requisite precision in this article; nonetheless, they provide emphasis to the notion that welfare state typologies may be most meaningful when they consider not only direct social welfare efforts but also the impact of alternative strategies for achieving social welfare ends and the conditions under which such alternatives would most likely be implemented.
45 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Social Services
Unique Social services offered by the military are critical to attracting members to the military. Brian Gifford The Camouflaged Safety Net: The U.S. Armed Forces as Welfare State Institution, Published by Oxford University Press Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 2006 13(3):372-399; doi:10.1093/sp/jxl003 http://sp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/13/3/372? maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
What becomes clear from this analysis is that expanding the welfare state concept to include state institutions, programs, and policies that provide benefits to individuals or remove them from the competitive workforce increases the potential for explaining the intersections of the state, labor markets, and public social provision. Such a reconceptualization also allows for cross-polity comparisons of the relative effectiveness of social welfare strategies. Volunteers who fill the ranks of the U.S. military by no means represent a cross-section of the general population. They are more likely to come from the lower socioeconomic strata and are disproportionately African American (Segal and Verdugo 1994; Moskos and Butler 1996). New recruits and career service members may view the military as a refuge against inhospitable labor market conditions, rather than one among many equally desirable employment opportunities. Investigation in this area may prove useful in both probing conceptions of de-commodification more deeply and understanding social assistance recipients themselves—those who make claims on the state based on their status of poverty, rather than demanding their social rights as full citizens. It may well be the case that in the United States the less-privileged strata of society often circumvent both commodification and the stigma of "welfare" through attachments to the armed forces and thus compare favorably with social welfare recipients in other Western industrialized nations. This may be particularly true of African Americans, who are overrepresented in both the armed forces and social assistance programs such as TANF and underrepresented in the workplace.
46 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Social Services
Lack of access to social services is critical for military recruitment. Jorge Mariscal Prof @UCSD “The Poverty Draft” June 2007 http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm? action=magazine.article&issue=soj0706&article=070628
In reality, Kerry's "botched joke"—Kerry said he was talking about President Bush and not the troops—contained a kernel of truth. It is not so much that one either studies hard or winds up in Iraq but rather that many U.S. troops enlist because access to higher education is closed off to them. Although they may be "plenty smart," financial hardship drives many to view the military's promise of money for college as their only hope to study beyond high school. Recruiters may not explicitly target "the poor," but there is mounting evidence that they target those whose career options are severely limited. According to a 2007 Associated Press analysis, "nearly three-fourths of [U.S. troops] killed in Iraq came from towns where the per capita income was below the national average. More than half came from towns where the percentage of people living in poverty topped the national average." It perhaps should come as no surprise that the Army GED Plus Enlistment Program, in which applicants without high school diplomas are allowed to enlist while they complete a high school equivalency certificate, is focused on inner-city areas. When working-class youth make it to their local community college, they often encounter military recruiters working hard to discourage them. "You're not going anywhere here," recruiters say. "This place is a dead end. I can offer you more." Pentagon-sponsored studies—such as the RAND Corporation's "Recruiting Youth in the College Market: Current Practices and Future Policy Options"—speak openly about college as the recruiter's number one competitor for the youth market. Add in race as a supplemental factor for how class determines the propensity to enlist and you begin to understand why communities of color believe military recruiters disproportionately target their children. Recruiters swear they don't target by race. But the millions of Pentagon dollars spent on special recruiting campaigns for Latino and African-American youth contradicts their claim. According to an Army Web site, the goal of the "Hispanic H2 Tour" was to "Build confidence, trust, and preference of the Army within the Hispanic community." The "Takin' it to the Streets Tour" was designed to accelerate recruitment in the African-American community where recruiters are particularly hard-pressed and faced with declining interest in the military as a career. In short, the nexus between class, race, and the "volunteer armed forces" is an unavoidable fact. NOT ALL RECRUITS, of course, are driven by financial need. In working- class communities of every color, there are often long-standing traditions of military service and links between service and privileged forms of masculinity. For communities often marked as "foreign," such as Latinos and Asians, there is pressure to serve in order to prove that one is "American." For recent immigrants, there is the lure of gaining legal resident status or citizenship. Economic pressure, however, is an undeniable motivation—yet to assert that fact in public often leads to confrontations with conservatives who ask, "How dare you question our troops' patriotism?" But any simplistic understanding of "patriotism" does not begin to capture the myriad of subjective motivations that often coexist alongside economic motives. Altruism—or as youth often put it, "I want to make a difference"—is also a major reason a significant number of people enlist. It is a terrible irony that contemporary American society provides working-class youth with few other outlets besides the military for their desire for agency, personal empowerment, and social commitment. It is especially tragic whenever U.S. foreign policy turns away from national defense and back toward the imperial tradition of military adventurism, as it did in Vietnam and Iraq. Within a worldview of pre-emptive war and wars of choice, the altruism and good intentions of young people become one more sentiment to be manipulated and exploited in order to further the aims of a small group of policymakers.
47 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Social Services
The military recruits by offering people otherwise unavailable social services. Faith Agostinone-Wilson, Assistant professor of education at Aurora University, Saturday, 21 March 2009, http://radicalnotes.com/content/view/94/39/
According to Mariscal (2004), here in the U.S., these imperialist adventures will require an endless supply of reserve troops, so “what better institutional site to conduct such a campaign than the nation’s dysfunctional public school systems that have been thrown into chaos by massive budget cuts, overcrowding, and neglect?” (para. 16 ). While there is no draft in official policy, the poverty draft includes those students being targeted with promises of services that are continually denied them in the larger world, services which are seen as components of basic human rights according to the 1948 United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (International Action Center, 2005; Kamenetz, 2006; Spring, 1999). People join the military not because they want to, but because they have to (Aleman, 2007). Rasmus (2007) describes the historical shift in unions over the past 150 years, ultimately impacting worker/boss power relations among the non-unionized. From the post WWII 1940s to the mid-1970s, there was an expansion of militant collective organizing, with health care, pensions, inflationary raises, and job security being on the list of demands. “…this was the golden age of contract bargaining, and of what might be called ‘contract unionism’ (p.45). From the late 70s onward, a shift occurred as part of a corporate offensive. Massive bargaining agreements were disrupted through legislation and a focus on concessions within existing contracts. “This period, which lasted until the present, might be called “concessionary unionism,” with its focus on minimizing the reduction of magnitudes and values in bargaining” (Rasmus, 2007, p.45). Now, unions are in the role of partnering with businesses, further eroding hard fought contracts, and shifting health care costs to the employee via high-deductable private insurance plans, and selling off pensions to be managed for profit. “This new condition might be indentified as the era of “corporate unionism” where unions become even more integrated with the strategies, aims, and objectives of global corporate management” (p.45). All of this contributes to the uncertainty that workers and young people about to enter the workforce experience. With traditional avenues of security fast disappearing, it is no wonder that people are “forced to turn towards the offered benefits and financial security of the Armed Forces” (Aleman, 2007, p.13). In A Deserter’s Tale, Key (2007) outlines in plain talk how his economic situation drove him to enlist with only ten dollars in his pocket the day he stepped into the recruiting office.
48 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Social Services
The military relies upon people without access to social services for recruiting. Lanetta Williams, Detroit Free Press, 2/23/2009 http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_story.aspx?storyid=105879&catid=14
DETROIT (Detroit Free Press) -- Marisa Carter left a private college in North Carolina after three years because of the education debt she was incurring. The 21-year-old Detroiter returned to Michigan in May, took a job at McDonald's and studied for a semester at Schoolcraft College. She moved in with her father, then with family friends. But she grew tired of the instability and the dependence on others. Carter was on the computer one day and "God led me to the Navy site," she said. Within weeks, she had enlisted, excited about the prospect of having a job, finishing her education, bettering herself and serving with President Barack Obama .as commander in chief. "I think it's a great time for me to join because of the economy," said Carter, who is to leave March 23 for basic training in Great Lakes, Ill. Recruiters for all military branches in metro Detroit said interest is up -- with the Army reporting its best recruiting start since 2003. The economy is a major reason. The military offers things that can be tough to find right now -- a steady job with benefits, housing, meals, tuition assistance and, in some cases, enlistment bonuses. Nearly 12,000 people enlisted nationwide for active duty from October through December, the first quarter of fiscal year 2009, said Jake Joy, spokesman for the Army Great Lakes Recruiting Center in Lansing. For example, his center, which covers Michigan's Lower Peninsula, had 1,148 active-duty recruits from October to this month -- 99 more enlistments than from October 2007 to February 2008. Joy said the new administration in Washington and change in direction of the military's objectives overseas also are reasons for increased interest. "I think a lot of people who were a little worried about immediately deploying aren't as worried as they were before," Joy said. That was the case for Carter, who hopes to receive a bachelor's degree and master's degree while making at least $2,400 a month in the Navy. One of the first questions she asked was whether she would be deployed. Some recruiters said they are seeing more people in their late 20s and early 30s interested in the military -- some for the second time. The services' usual target markets are people age 17 to 24, though the Army raised its enlistment age from 35 to 42 in 2006. Army Staff Sgt. Harry Weaver, a recruiter in Mt. Clemens for almost three years, said walk-in interest has been up about 30% during the last year, though people aren't necessarily willing to join right away. He said he tries to ask everyone why they've come to the recruiting center. Some say the benefits, such as the Army's college loan repayment program. "The biggest one recently is unable to find a secure job," he said. A twin decision When the economy took a nosedive, Patrice and Latrice Lyons took a second look at the military. The 30-year-old identical twins from Roseville researched the armed forces after receiving master's degrees in human resources from Central Michigan University. They chose the Army, saying it would give them a good opportunity and help them pay back their student loans and continue their education to earn doctoral degrees. They are to leave March 5 for basic training at Ft. Leonard Wood, Mo. "We all know the economy is bad right now. Security is there," Patrice Lyons said. Latrice Lyons agreed. The military "has always been a consideration. Now with the economy, we looked at it a little bit stronger," she said. "Working for the United States government, what better security can you have than that?"
49 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Link – Social Services
Social services available in the military that are not available elsewhere in society are crucial for military recruitment. David L. Leal The University of Texas at Austin American Public Opinion toward the Military: Differences by Race, Gender, and Class? Armed Forces & Society 2005; http://afs.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/32/1/123
For individuals, the contemporary military has been an especially hospitable institution, particularly in comparison to the larger society. As Moskos and Butler noted, “At a time when Afro-Americans were still arguing for their educational rights before the Supreme Court and marching for their social and political rights in the Deep South, the Army had become desegregated with little fanfare.” The results were so successful that “if officers are the executives of the armed forces, the armed forces boast more black executives than any other institution in the country.”13 There is also evidence that African Americans have, for some time, perceived the military as more egalitarian than civilian society, particularly in terms of advancement opportunities and economic stability.14 Not only has discrimination in the military dramatically abated, but such service also provides an avenue for upward mobility that is not always available in civilian society. It provides a standard of living and an array of social services not commonly available for those without higher education, and according to Ricks, “the army may be the only institution in America where we can see what Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society could have been.”15 Military service may also enable African Americans and Latinos to better succeed in the civilian world.16 This may be the result of the training received in the military or the postservice educational benefits such as the G.I. Bill. The military may also serve as a “bridging environment”17 that allows minority veterans to better integrate into civilian society.18 One of the few previous studies of this topic, however, showed that African Americans were no more or less likely than whites to believe there were opportunities for minorities in the military.19
50 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 I/L – Military Strength K Heg
Military is key in maintaining US global power Stephen Gardner, Editor of www.euro-correspondent.com , 06/ 2004, “Questioning American Hegemony”, http://nthposition.com/questioningamerican.php
The second main underpinning of the orthodoxy of American hegemony is American military power. US military spending is vast. It will be an estimated USD 400 billion in the budget year 2005, dwarfing the defence spend of any other country. The US has the world's most technologically advanced and potentially devastating arsenal. Once again, the media reflects the orthodoxy that American military might is hegemonic. In The Observer in February 2002, for example, Peter Beaumont and Ed Vulliamy wrote, "The reality - even before the latest proposed increases in military spending - is that America could beat the rest of the world at war with one hand tied behind its back." [1] However, the same article goes on to ask the key question about the development of the vast and sophisticated arsenal: "Why the need for more and better military power? Even the military analysts are baffled." However, Beaumont and Vulliamy fail to explore this question in depth, and eventually reach the orthodox conclusion about dominance of American power: "The new culture of US military hegemony is not a continuation of the might the US enjoyed under Bill Clinton or any other administration. It is new…"
Military, made up of recruits, is essential to US dominance. Army Headquarters 2001, Field Manual 1, “The Army,”, June 14, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/1/index.html
America is a strong Nation. It has abundant resources and a dynamic and productive population. It wields enormous political power and has the world’s strongest economy. But without a strong military to protect its enduring interests, America’s strength would soon wither. Since the end of the Cold War, the world has been in a state of significant transition. This transition is marked by increased uncertainty and potential vulnerability. The strategic environment is less stable than in the past, and threats to American interests are less predictable. National power remains relative and dynamic, and as such, the military must provide the National Command Authorities with flexible forces that can operate across the range of military operations and spectrum of conflict to achieve national security objectives. The Army operates as part of the joint force, and The Army constitutes the preponderance of the land component of that force. Acting as part of joint and multinational teams, The Army provides sustained land power capabilities to combatant commanders for engagement, crisis response, and warfighting in support of our national interests.
US power based on military readiness and preparation, which includes manpower.xs Donnelly, 2003---Resident Scholar at AEI, Thomas, Resident Scholar at AEI, 2/1. http://www.aei.org/publications /pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp
The preservation of today's Pax Americana rests upon both actual military strength and the perception of strength. The variety of victories scored by U.S. forces since the end of the cold war is testament to both the futility of directly challenging the United States and the desire of its enemies to keep poking and prodding to find a weakness in the American global order. Convincing would-be great powers, rogue states, and terrorists to accept the liberal democratic order--and the challenge to autocratic forms of rule that come with it--requires not only an overwhelming response when the peace is broken, but a willingness to step in when the danger is imminent. The message of the Bush Doctrine--"Don't even think about it!"--rests in part on a logic of preemption that underlies the logic of primacy.
51 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 I/L – Military Strength K Heg
Again, a main factor of US hegemony is military power. Barry Posen, 2003, "Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony”, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
One pillar of U.S. hegemony is the vast military power of the United States. A staple of the U.S. debate about the size of the post–Cold War defense budget is the observation that the United States spends more than virtually all of the world’s other major military powers combined, most of which are U.S. allies.7 Observers of the actual capabilities that this effort produces can focus on a favorite aspect of U.S. superiority to make the point that the United States sits comfortably atop the military food chain, and is likely to remain there. This article takes a slightly different approach. Below I argue that the United States enjoys command of the commons—command of the sea, space, and air. I discuss how command of the commons supports a hegemonic grand strategy. I explain why it seems implausible that a challenge to this command could arise in the near to medium term. Then I review the arenas of military action where adversaries continue to be able to ªght U.S. forces with some hope of success— the “contested zones.” I argue that in the near to medium term the United States will not be able to establish command in these arenas. The interrelation- ship between U.S. command of the commons and the persistence of the contested zones suggests that the United States can probably pursue a policy of selective engagement but not one of primacy.
52 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 I/L – Recruitment K Heg
Recruitment is key to deterring threats, reinforcing diplomatic initiatives and winning wars Mackenzie M. Eaglen [Senior Policy Analyst for National Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for Inter-national Studies, at The Heritage Foundation] “Protecting the Protectors by Investing in People and Next-Generation Equipment” June 8, 2009
The U.S. government's primary job is to provide for the common defense. The most important element to protecting vital national interests is the U.S. military, which reinforces America's diplomatic initiatives, acts to deter threats, and, when necessary, fights and wins the nation's wars. Two components determine a strong military: the quality of its service members and the equipment available to them. More Cash for Today's Forces For the past 36 years, America's military has operated as an all-volunteer force. As the commission responsible for recommending a volunteer force observed, forced military service through the draft was "intolerable" when compared with a volunteer system that aligned more distinctly with "our basic national values." Almost four decades later, the verdict is in: The U.S. military is the most highly trained, well- disciplined, and adaptive fighting force the world has ever seen. But an all-volunteer system doesn't come cheap: You get what you pay for. To recruit and retain the best force possible, as well as care for their families, the military has to provide a competitive array of pay and benefits. Although those who wear our country's uniform can never be fully compensated for their service, there are better ways to pay them.
53 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 I/L – Recruitment K Readiness
Recruitment is key to readiness C.S.B.A. 06 The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (http://www.csbaonline.org/2006-1/2.DefenseBudget/Personnel_and_Readiness.shtml)
Perhaps no other factor is as important to the effectiveness of the US military as the quality of its personnel. Likewise, the "readiness" of the US military to fight effectively on relatively short notice depends critically on keeping US forces well trained, and armed with well maintained equipment. As a result, trends in military recruitment and retention, training rates, and equipment maintenance and repair, are monitored closely by the administration and Congress, and have frequently sparked intense and often highly politicized debates.
The lowering of recruiting standards undermines military readiness The New York Times “Army and Marine Corps Grant More Felony Waivers” April 22, 2008 . Lexis
From Sept. 30, 2006, to Sept. 30, 2007, the Army granted so-called conduct waivers for felonies and misdemeanors to 18 percent of its new recruits, an increase of three percentage points from the previous year. So far, in just the first six months of this fiscal year, the Army has granted waivers to 13 percent of its recruits. ''It raises concerns,'' said Representative Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat who is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which requested the information on felony waivers from the Department of Defense. ''An increase in the recruitment of individuals with criminal records is a result of the strains put on the military by the Iraq war and may be undermining our military readiness.'' Mr. Waxman said his committee had requested additional information on the specifics of the felony waivers, the rationale for granting them and the waiver program's track record. Lt. Col. Patrick Ryder of the Air Force, a Defense Department spokesman, said waivers were used among the services rarely and judiciously. Dispensations are granted only after a careful review of any applicant's record and the circumstances surrounding the charge or conviction, Colonel Ryder said. Often, he added, the charges occurred when the recruits were juveniles and were less serious than they appeared initially. Only one in three young men in the general population meet the physical, mental, educational and other eligibility requirements to enlist in the armed forces. Colonel Ryder said that in the past year, the percentage of waivers issued to people with criminal histories and medical conditions declined for the Defense Department in general. ''The services continue to ensure that numerical recruiting missions are met with above-average young men and women from across America,'' Colonel Ryder said. ''Low unemployment, a protracted war on terror, a decline in propensity to serve and a growing disinclination of influencers to recommend military service make the current environment a challenging one for recruiters.'' The 2006 and 2007 Pentagon data released Monday show for the first time the number of dispensations issued for specific felonies. The number of Army waivers for aggravated assaults with a dangerous weapon rose to 43 from 33. Waivers for burglaries increased to 106 from 36. Waivers for possession of narcotics, excluding marijuana, rose to 130 from 71 and for larceny to 56 from 26. In the Marine Corps, waivers for burglary convictions rose to 142 from 90, while those for aggravated assault increased to 44 from 35. The Army also listed a handful of felony waivers granted for kidnapping, making terroristic threats, rape or sexual abuse, and indecent acts or liberties with a child. Lt. Col. Anne Edgecomb, an Army spokeswoman, said the waivers had been carefully vetted and were not as serious as they appeared on paper. The kidnapping charge involved a divorced woman who moved out of state with her child without the permission of her former husband, she said. One terroristic threat charge involved a 14-year-old who called in a bomb threat to his school, and the other also involved a minor. The rape and sexual abuse charges stemmed mostly from relationships between minors and older boyfriends, Colonel Edgecomb said. None were violent sexual crimes, she added. ''We take this incredibly seriously,'' Colonel Edgecomb said. ''This is our Army, too. We have to serve with the people we allow in.'' Military analysts, though, say these are exactly the kinds of recruits who would never have been allowed into the Army before the war in Iraq. To reach its recruiting targets, the Army has had to soften many of its requirements. It now allows in more recruits who did not graduate from high school and who received lower test scores in their service entry exams. Recruits are older and less physically fit. And there are more people in the service with medical conditions that would have otherwise disqualified their enlistment.
54 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 I/L – Qualified Recruitment K Readiness
A lack of qualified recruits means the military turns to felons undermine readiness Daily News (New York) “TANKS FOR THE FELONIES: CONS FLOOD MILITARY” April 22, 2008
WASHINGTON - The Army and Marines last year doubled the number of convicted felons they enlisted, raising new concerns about the strain on the military from fighting two wars. About 861 enlistees convicted of felony assault, burglary, possession of hard drugs and even rape and other sex crimes went into uniform for the first time last year, a House panel reported yesterday. The Army and Marines recruited 115,000 men and women in 2007, two years after reports first surfaced about enlistment standards being watered down to meet quotas. "Concerns have been raised that the significant increase in the recruitment of persons with criminal records is a result of the strain put on the military by the Iraq war and may be undermining military readiness," said House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman.
55 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 I/L – Qualified Recruitment K Heg
Low quality troop hurts US army; smarter troops are key to US military power. Fred Kaplan, January 9, 2006, “GI Schmo: How Low Can Recruiters Go?” Slate Magazine, http://www.slate.com/id/2133908/
Three months ago, I wrote that the war in Iraq was wrecking the U.S. Army, and since then the evidence has only mounted, steeply. Faced with repeated failures to meet its recruitment targets, the Army has had to lower its standards dramatically. First it relaxed restrictions against high-school drop-outs. Then it started letting in more applicants who score in the lowest third on the armed forces aptitude test—a group, known as Category IV recruits, who have been kept to exceedingly small numbers, as a matter of firm policy, for the past 20 years. (There is also a Category V—those who score in the lowest 10th percentile. They have always been ineligible for service in the armed forces and, presumably, always will be.) The bad news is twofold. First, the number of Category IV recruits is starting to skyrocket. Second, a new study compellingly demonstrates that, in all realms of military activity, intelligence does matter. Smarter soldiers and units perform their tasks better; dumber ones do theirs worse. The evidence is overwhelming. Take tank gunners. You wouldn't think intelligence would have much effect on the ability to shoot straight, but apparently it does. Replacing a gunner who'd scored Category IV on the aptitude test (ranking in the 10-30 percentile) with one who'd scored Category IIIA (50-64 percentile) improved the chances of hitting targets by 34 percent. (For more on the meaning of the test scores, click here.) In another study cited by the RAND report, 84 three-man teams from the Army's active-duty signal battalions were given the task of making a communications system operational. Teams consisting of Category IIIA personnel had a 67 percent chance of succeeding. Those consisting of Category IIIB (who'd ranked in the 31-49 percentile on the aptitude test) had a 47 percent chance. Those with Category IV personnel had only a 29 percent chance.
56 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 I/L – Readiness K Heg
Readiness is key to hegemony—global power signal. SPENCER 00 Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security at Heritage Jack, September 15, http://www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG1394.cfm Military readiness is vital because declines in America’s military readiness signal to the rest of the world that the United States is not prepared to defend its interests. Therefore, potentially hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests, inevitably leading to U.S. involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest, thereby preserving peace.
57 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 I/L – Lowering Recruitment Standards Kills Power
Iraq doesn’t affect military readiness, only by not lowering the standards for recruitment can America maintain power Peter W. Singer [Senior fellow at the Brookings institute and the director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative] “Bent but Not Broken: The Military Challenge for the Next Commander-in-Chief” 2008 \www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/~/media/Files/Projects/Opportunity08/PB_MilitaryReadiness_PSinger.pdf
Although the next U.S. President will become Commander-in-Chief of a military unmatched in its power and capability, this excellence is under siege. The U.S. military has been stretched thin and worn down by the combination of extensive deployments over the last six years and a deferral of the hard questions of how a nation supports a military at war. Downward trends in recruiting and retention show a force under great stress. More than a simple matter of raw numbers, this has a long- term effect on the quality of our military forces. And, while defense budgeting remains focused on acquiring major new weapons systems that will not be available until many years hence, a looming equipment gap harms our security in the here and now. The war in Iraq has created many of these challenges, but they will continue years after operations there end. A critical test for the next Commander-in-Chief will go beyond deciding when and where to use military force; it will require taking the actions necessary to ensure that the U.S. military does not become broken under the new President’s watch and that it remains both ready and capable. In the very early days of the new Administration, the next President should commission plans of action for adequately filling the military’s personnel and equipment needs. Specifically, the new President should: ƒ formulate a national call to service that would support recruitment efforts ƒ ensure that recruiting standards are not lowered ƒ restore funding of troop levels now deemed “temporary”
58 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 I/L – Recruitment Key to Readiness
The military is meeting goals now but without personal readiness will collapse Defense Daily “Sustained Congressional Investment For Readiness Is Critical For Army And Marines” March 12, 2009 . Lexis
"The demand on our Brigade Combat Teams, Combat Service and Combat Service Support formations, and Individual Augmentees, is simply outstripping the supply needed to provide the Nation strategic depth for contingencies beyond Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. "The cumulative impacts of almost eight years of war are having impacts on the readiness of the Army. Institutional systems designed for a pre-9/11 Army are strained. Readiness is being consumed as fast as we can provide it." "...we have experienced degradation in some of our traditional, full spectrum, core competencies such as integrated combined arms operations, and large-scale amphibious operations," Amos' testimony said. Part of the Corps' concerns lies with the lack of time at home, the need to task those in combat arms with other jobs, such as security, civil affairs and policing. Congressional support is needed. For the Marines, Amos described the key areas: personnel and military construction, equipment, training, amphibious shipbuilding, and caring for warriors and their families. For the Army, modernization, growth, and full and timely funding are areas of need. On the positive side, Amos said the Marines grew by more than 12,000 in fiscal year 2008 and is on track to reach the increased authorized end strength of 202,000 by the end of this fiscal year, two years ahead of schedule. The Army, too, expects to reach its authorized strength ahead of schedule, and its recruiting and retaining levels are high, "but alarmingly, only three out of 10 applicants are even eligible for military service," Chiarelli's statement said.
59 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 I/L – Recruitment Key To Readiness
Recruitment key to readiness Peter W. Singer [Senior fellow at the Brookings institute and the director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative] “Bent but Not Broken: The Military Challenge for the Next Commander-in-Chief” 2008 \www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/~/media/Files/Projects/Opportunity08/PB_MilitaryReadiness_PSinger.pdf
Ensuring the best possible human capital for the force is essential in the era of the “strategic corporal,” a term coined by former Marine Corps Commandant Charles Krulak. In the conflicts of the 21st century, the pressures on individual soldiers are greater, and expectations and responsibilities are higher. Concomitantly, mistakes at the lowest unit level can have strategic consequences.
60 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 I/L – Recruitment Key to Power Projection
Lack of recruits, not the war in Iraq will destroy American military might Peter W. Singer [Senior fellow at the Brookings institute and the director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative] “Bent but Not Broken: The Military Challenge for the Next Commander-in-Chief” 2008 \www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/~/media/Files/Projects/Opportunity08/PB_MilitaryReadiness_PSinger.pdf
A spent and broken force after Vietnam, the U.S. military has been rebuilt into the most professional, best-trained, and best- equipped military in history. For all the challenges presented in Afghanistan and Iraq, its combat capabilities are unmatched. Indeed, the greatest threats we face no longer come from peer competitors, but from foes that seek out weakness on other planes of battle. This excellence is under siege. Our military has been at war for the last six years, but—other than at our airports—our nation has not. There has been no call to service and no mobilization on a national scale. Instead, our leaders have deferred the tough challenges, which are beginning to create serious crunches on both military personnel and equipment that no serious candidate for President can ignore. The U.S. military’s ability to field sufficient, high-quality, well-equipped forces is at a “tipping point.” It is certainly far from broken, but warning symptoms are clearly mounting. Small compromises—such as accepting gaps in personnel and equipment— are beginning to have huge consequences. “What keeps me awake at night,” General Richard Cody, Army Vice Chief of Staff, told Congress, “is, what will this all-volunteer force look like in 2007?” What it will look like in 2008 and beyond should be keeping the candidates for President awake as well. Ensuring that the U.S. military does not break down will be a critical—and unavoidable—challenge.
61 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Readiness 2NC Overview [LONG]
American military readiness is key to check threats from North Korea, Iran, Russia and China Peter Brookes [Senior Fellow at the Heritage foundation] “Rogue States and Rising Powers Continue to Pose a Strategic Risk to American Security” June 15, 2009
There is a popular notion that the world has changed dramatically with the election of a new American President and that the United States will not be challenged by ambitious peer competitors in the coming decades. While this is a hopeful concept, it is also inaccurate. The world remains a dangerous place, populated with countries that will compete with the United States for political, economic, and military preeminence and could hold American interests around the world at risk. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and against al-Qaeda certainly should be at the forefront in defense spending and planning, but we also need a balanced force that can address emerging conventional and strategic challenges from rogue states and rising nations. North Korea continues to be a significant threat to peace and stability, both on and beyond the Korean peninsula. The peaceful reunification of North and South Korea seems as distant as ever, and there are big questions about a successor to North Korea's ailing Kim Jong-Il. The number of North Korean provocations just since the beginning of the year has been staggering. On the conventional front, Pyongyang's forward-deployed million-man army could lash out at South Korean and American forces across the DMZ at a moment's notice. This spring, Pyongyang declared that it was no longer bound by the conditions of the 1953 Korean War armistice. On the strategic front, in April, it launched a long-range Taepo Dong ballistic missile with intercontinental-range potential. Pyongyang claimed that the launch was a satellite shot, but experts say that it was a cover for an intercontinental ballistic missile ( ICBM) program. Another long-range missile test is expected in the coming weeks. While walking out of the Six-Party talks aimed at containing North Korea's nuclear ambitions, Pyongyang last month also conducted its second nuclear test in less than three years and reopened a shuttered nuclear facility that could be used to expand its nuclear arsenal. These recent missile and nuclear developments fuel concerns that North Korea is making progress on developing a warhead to fit atop the Taepo Dong ballistic missile that could reach American soil. Beyond its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and its role as the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism, Iran is looking to project power across the region and beyond as it seeks to become the most powerful country in the Middle East and the Muslim world. Tehran's effort to modernize its conventional forces by purchasing arms from Russia and China, while important, is dwarfed by its nuclear and ballistic missile efforts. Iran is almost assuredly involved in a nuclear weapons effort under the guise of a peaceful nuclear power program, and some experts believe it now has the wherewithal to produce a single nuclear device. It may be developing a nuclear warhead. With the Shahab-class missile, Tehran can already reach all of the Middle East and parts of Southeastern Europe. But Iran's ambitions seem to go beyond that. This spring, Iran launched its first indigenously produced satellite, putting Tehran on a trajectory to develop an ICBM capability that could be matched with its budding nuclear program. Whilethe global economic downturn has affected Russia's military modernization programs, reducing Moscow's defense spending increase this year from a planned 25 percent to 10 percent, Russia still has every intention of developing a modern force to protect its periphery. It also appears to have every intention of reasserting itself as a world power. A top Russian Air Force general this spring claimed that Venezuela could host Russian long-range bombers. This follows the visit of Russian bombers and a small flotilla to Venezuela last year. Cuba was mentioned as a possible home to Russian planes as well. Russia is also looking at reestablishing its Cold War naval base in Syria and is discussing basing rights in Libya and Yemen to forward-deploy warships. Russian strategic bombers are operating widely from bases across Russia, and some have conducted flybys near U.S. Navy aircraft carriers. In our own hemisphere, Venezuela, led by stormy president Hugo Chavez, has been involved in a notable military buildup that is seemingly aimed at exerting regional hegemony. With one of Latin America's largest defense budgets, Venezuela has purchased as much as $4 billion in Russian arms, including fighters, attack helicopters, and assault weapons, and reportedly has signed contracts with Moscow to build nuclear reactors in Venezuela, since other regional powers have shunned cooperation due to concerns about possible nuclear proliferation. The biggest challenge to American military preeminence will come from China. Beijing's unprecedented military buildup has included double-digit increases in defense spending for more than a decade. China now has the world's second-largest defense budget, and Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has observed that Beijing's military modernization is "very much focused on the United States." Beijing is professionalizing the People's Liberation Army and has focused its defense budget on asymmetric and power-projection forces such as its navy and ballistic missiles. While long focused on Taiwan, China is evaluating its forces for operations beyond East Asia. It has one of the world's most active ship- and sub marine-building programs, and an aircraft carrier program is almost a given. A new anti-ship ballistic missile reportedly can target ships at sea--a threat never before faced by our Navy. The central argument that the United States can reduce its defense budget, especially its investment in next-generation systems, because it is unlikely to face threats from any peer competitors in the next 20 years is clearly specious. Ambitious rising nations will be sure to challenge the United States militarily if they sense decline or weakness . While Iraq, Afghanistan, and al-Qaeda are the wolves closest to the sled, they are not the only ones out there . Now is not the time for complacency about the threats looming on the horizon or the need to invest in a strong national defense.
62 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Readiness 2NC Overview [LONG]
Unchecked, those scenarios go nuclear
North Korea Chol, ’02 (Kim Myong, The Agreed Framework is Brain Dead, http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/0212A_Chol.html)
The second choice is for the Americans to initiate military action to knock out the nuclear facilities in North Korea. Without precise knowledge of the location of those target facilities, the American policy planners face the real risk of North Korea launching a full-scale war against South Korea, Japan and the U.S. The North Korean retaliation will most likely leave South Korea and Japan totally devastated with the Metropolitan U.S. being consumed in nuclear conflagration. Looking down on the demolished American homeland, American policy planners aboard a special Boeing jets will have good cause to claim, "We are winners, although our homeland is in ashes. We are safely alive on this jet." The third and last option is to agree to a shotgun wedding with the North Koreans. It means entering into package solution negotiations with the North Koreans, offering to sign a peace treaty to terminate the relations of hostility, establish full diplomatic relations between the two enemy states, withdraw the American forces from South Korea, remove North Korea from the list of axis of evil states and terrorist- sponsoring states, and give North Korea most favored nation treatment. The first two options should be sobering nightmare scenarios for a wise Bush and his policy planners. If they should opt for either of the scenarios, that would be their decision, which the North Koreans are in no position to take issue with. The Americans would realize too late that the North Korean mean what they say. The North Koreans will use all their resources in their arsenal to fight a full-scale nuclear exchange with the Americans in the last war of mankind . A nuclear-armed North Korea would be most destabilizing in the region and the rest of the world in the eyes of the Americans. They would end up finding themselves reduced to a second-class nuclear power.
Iran Henry Sokolsky [Executive Director, Nonproliferation Policy Education Center] POLICY REVIEW, October/November 2003, p. http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447161.html
If nothing is done to shore up U.S. and allied security relations with the Gulf Coordination Council states and with Iraq, Turkey, and Egypt, Iran's acquisition of even a nuclear weapons breakout capability could prompt one or more of these states to try to acquire a nuclear weapons option of their own. Similarly, if the U.S. fails to hold Pyongyang accountable for its violation of the NPT or lets Pyongyang hold on to one or more nuclear weapons while appearing to reward its violation with a new deal--one that heeds North Korea's demand for a nonaggression pact and continued construction of the two light water reactors--South Korea and Japan (and later, perhaps, Taiwan) will have powerful cause to question Washington's security commitment to them and their own pledges to stay non-nuclear. In such a world, Washington's worries would not be limited to gauging the military capabilities of a growing number of hostile, nuclear, or near-nuclear-armed nations. In addition, it would have to gauge the reliability of a growing number of nuclear or near-nuclear friends. Washington might still be able to assemble coalitions, but with more nations like France, with nuclear options of their own, it would be much, much more iffy. The amount of international intrigue such a world would generate would also easily exceed what our diplomats and leaders could manage or track. Rather than worry about using force for fear of producing another Vietnam, Washington and its very closest allies are more likely to grow weary of working closely with others and view military options through the rosy lens of their relatively quick victories in Desert Storm, Kosovo, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Just Cause. This would be a world disturbingly similar to that of 1914 but with one big difference: It would be spring-loaded to go nuclear.
63 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Readiness 2NC Overview [LONG]
Russia Nick Bostrom [Professor of Philosophy and Global Studies at Yale] 2002.. "Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards," 38, www.transhumanist.com/volume9/risks.html.
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal . There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization. Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind’s potential permanently.
China James Hsiung [professor of politics and international law at NYU] 21ST CENTURY WORLD ORDER AND THE ASIA PACIFIC, 2001, p. 359-60
But decision-makers cannot afford such luxury. Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s Senior Minister, issued a grave warning presumably directed at all government leaders, including the United States, that the Taiwan power kege could ignite a conflagaration that would engulf the entire region. It might even embroil the United States in a nuclear holocaust that nobody wants. Often-times, well-meaning analysts raise the question whether China, with its present military capability and modest defense expenditures (about U.S. $15 billion annually0, can or cannot take Taiwan by forces. But this is the wrong question to pose. As the late patriarch Deng Xiapoing put it, “We rather have it proven that we trade but failed [to stop it[ even by force, than be accused [by our disgruntled compatriots and posterity] of not trying to stop Taiwan from going independent.” Earlier, I raised the issue of stability within the U.S.-China-Japan triad, precisely with the U.S.-Japan alliance in view. Apparently, many in Japan have apprehensions about the stability. Japanese Nobel laureate (for literature) Ohe Kenzaburo, for instance, once told a pen pal that he was fearful of the outcome of a conflict between the United States and China over the question of Taiwan. Because of its alliance relationship, Japan would be embroiled in a conflict that it did not choose that might escalate into a nuclear holocaust. From the ashes of such a nuclear conflict, he figured, some form of life may still be found in the combatant nuclear giants, China and the United States, But, Kohaburo argued, there would be absolutely nothing left in Japan or Taiwan or in the conflict’s wake.
64 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Readiness 2NC Overview [SHORT]
American military dominance is on the brink. A collapse of readiness would lead to conflagrations around the globe The Boston Globe “Fewer Pacific forces ready to respond Admiral cites risks in crisis” (Keating is the admiral in charge of CENTCOM) February 27, 2008 Lexis
In the Pacific, Keating said he does not foresee a major conflict on the horizon, but he said trouble spots remain, including areas where anti-American terrorist groups are operating and tensions linger between large military forces. "There is a significant threat stream for terrorism in the southern Philippines ," Keating said, pointing out that an estimated 8,000 US military personnel are now "providing medical and engineering assistance throughout southern Philippines." Other "sources of greater concern," he added, are the " India Pakistan-border , North-South Korea, [and] tensions [with China] across the Strait of Taiwan." "Overarching all of them [is] the movement of violent extremists, their supporters, and their financial backers" throughout the region, he said. For now, Keating said, he is confident that his command - stretching from California to Africa and from the North to the South poles - can maintain "military pre-eminence." Still, he said, "We have had to adjust [strategic plans] a little bit because of the 30-some thousand Marines and soldiers who are ordinarily in our [area] but are not."
Unchecked a nuclear war would break out between India and Pakistan ending all life on earth in a nuclear winter Ghulam Nabi Fai [Executive Director, Kashmiri American Council] WASHINGTON TIMES, September 8, 2001 www.mediamonitors.net/fai6.htm
The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary.
Unchecked terrorism started in the Philippines causes extinction Yonah Alexander [Director Inter-University for Terrorism Studies] “The Washington times, “Terrorism myths and realities” 2003
Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically that the international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns. Impact – Readiness – Proliferation 2NC
American military readiness is key to international peace and the stop of nuclear proliferation The Boston Globe “America's new global challenge” July 24, 2008. Lexis
65 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 AS BARACK OBAMA travels abroad this week, he is finding a world that still wants America to be engaged, but no longer necessarily waits for America to take the lead. The challenge for the next president is to understand how much has changed and how America can best pursue its national interests in such a different international environment. It isn't just the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have changed the world, nor other aspects of the Bush legacy that have weakened America's power and position. The world itself has changed. Ours is the era of global interconnectedness. The fate of the average American is increasingly connected to the fate of people around the world creating unparalleled opportunities but also great dangers from which no nation can be immune. Ours is also an era of increasingly diffuse power, as more powers rise to demand influence and a say over global affairs and more actors of many different kinds affect the course of global politics. Such a world requires a new kind of leadership - one that is clear on how, when, and with whom America leads. Call it strategic leadership. A leadership that understands that while much of the world still believes that international peace and prosperity are most likely to be achieved if Washington plays a significant and constructive role, key actors no longer simply defer to or automatically prefer what America wants. A leadership that focuses on effective action rather than who is in the lead. A leadership that relies on clear judgment as much as demonstrating resolve. A leadership that grasps that however great our power, America cannot meet today's challenges all on its own. Strategic leadership requires a commitment to statecraft as both an alternative and a complement to military force. Although diplomacy has its limitations, US strategic interests are often best served by leveraging its potential for enhancing security, reducing tensions, resolving conflicts, achieving peace, and transforming adversarial relationships. With regard to nuclear proliferation, for instance, the best hope lies not in striking possible proliferators, but in working with countries around the world to renew the essential bargain at the core of the nuclear nonproliferation regime. On this issue, America will have to lead, by reducing reliance on nuclear weapons and committing to seeking a world free of nuclear weapons. Only then can it convince others to do likewise and gain the benefits of nuclear power without risking wider proliferation of nuclear weapons and capabilities. Strategic leadership demands a strong military, but also the wisdom to know when and how to employ it. For example, US withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq cannot be a military withdrawal from the region. A regional military posture that deters adversaries and reassures allies must remain in place. The conflict in Afghanistan must get greater priority. But so too must diplomatic initiatives. Militarily and diplomatically, the United States needs regional and European partners to do their part. America should take the lead where it can play the most constructive role and support others when their roles are most promising.
Proliferation causes extinction Utgoff 02, Deputy Director of Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of Institute for Defense Analysis [Victor A., “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions,” Survival, Summer, p. 87-90] bg
Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants before hand. Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’ on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations. This kind of world is in no nation’s interest. The means for preventing it must be pursuedvigorously. And, as argued above,a most powerful way to prevent it or slow its emergence is to encourage the more capable states to provide reliable protection to others against aggression, even when that aggression could be backed with nuclear weapons. In other words,the world needs at least one state, preferably several,willingand ableto play the role of sheriff, or to be members of a sheriff’s posse, even in the face of nuclear threats.
66 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Readiness – Terrorism 2NC
American military readiness is key to check international terrorism and proliferation Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D [Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies and Director, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies] “Time for a New International Game Plan” January 22, 2009 http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/KimHolmes.cfm
A growing number of the national security chal lenges America faces are global in nature. Terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons along with the missiles to deliver them merely top the list. The economic crisis of 2008 and Russia's invasion of Georgia, a free and democratic nation looking to enter NATO, demonstrate that America's interests span the globe. Sadly, the alliances and international institutions that we helped create in the past century to deal with such challenges are ill suited to doing so. The world's major international institutions and organizations, established in the wake of World War II, have changed dramatically over the decades, yet they have never shed the genetic makeup of their creation. Their original structures fit a particular time, which has long since passed away. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was designed to defend Western Europe from the Soviet Union, but that is not its central focus today. The United Nations was supposed to enable Western powers like the United States to lead the world in securing peace; yet after the addition of scores of new members to its political body, the General Assembly, it has seemed more intent on curbing rather than accommodating U.S. leadership.Of all the postwar creations, the Bretton Woods institutions function most closely to their original purposes; yet even they at times have lost touch with the fundamental economic principles of free-market capitalism on which the world's prosperity depends. It is time for America's leaders to think more boldly about the best ways to secure peace and prosperity in the 21st century. It is time for a new international game plan, one that envisions new and revitalized international institutions and alliances that are better equipped to defend and promote liberty both at home and around the world. 21st Century Challenges Need 21st Century Responses America had at least a hand in creating all of the postwar international institutions, and it was assumed that their success depended on its continued support and leadership. Today, however, many of these institutions often dismiss the very idea of U.S. leadership as a relic of the past. Even our allies will sometimes treat America's attempts at leadership more as a problem to be overcome than as a neces sity for securing peace and freedom in the world. Yet securing peace and freedom in the world can not be achieved with America on the sidelines. With interests that span the globe, the United States is still the most powerful, most influential, and richest country in the world and the only major power capable of projecting that power on behalf of free dom and peace. No country that relies on her for freedom and security should ever want to see America relegated to the role of mere Chairman of the Board of International Consensus as defined by the U.N. or the European Union (EU)--which is precisely what American leadership will become unless the United States finds more effective ways to exercise its unique role in the world. Our existing institutions and alliances should not be abandoned, but they should be supplemented with something far more effective.
67 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Readiness – Terrorism 2NC
Terrorism risks extinction Alexander 03. (Yonah, Prof and Director of Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, Washington Times, August 28, lexis)
Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security concerns. Two myths in particular must be debunked immediately if an effective counterterrorism "best practices" strategy can be developed [e.g., strengthening international cooperation]. The first illusion is that terrorism can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated completely, provided the root causes of conflicts - political, social and economic - are addressed. The conventional illusion is that terrorism must be justified by oppressed people seeking to achieve their goals and consequently the argument advanced by "freedom fighters" anywhere, "give me liberty and I will give you death," should be tolerated if not glorified. This traditional rationalization of "sacred" violence often conceals that the real purpose of terrorist groups is to gain political power through the barrel of the gun, in violation of fundamental human rights of the noncombatant segment of societies. For instance, Palestinians religious movements [e.g., Hamas, Islamic Jihad] and secular entities [such as Fatah's Tanzim and Aqsa Martyr Brigades]] wish not only to resolve national grievances [such as Jewish settlements, right of return, Jerusalem] but primarily to destroy the Jewish state. Similarly, Osama bin Laden's international network not only opposes the presence of American military in the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, but its stated objective is to "unite all Muslims and establish a government that follows the rule of the Caliphs." The second myth is that strong action against terrorist infrastructure [leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational command and control] will only increase terrorism. The argument here is that law-enforcement efforts and military retaliation inevitably will fuel more brutal acts of violent revenge. Clearly, if this perception continues to prevail, particularly in democratic societies, there is the danger it will paralyze governments and thereby encourage further terrorist attacks. In sum, past experience provides useful lessons for a realistic future strategy. The prudent application of force has been demonstrated to be an effective tool for short- and long-term deterrence of terrorism. For example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of the Islamic Jihad, defused a "ticking bomb." The assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab - a top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip who was directly responsible for several suicide bombings including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem - disrupted potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the U.S. military operation in Iraq eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a state sponsor of terror. Thus, it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism to understand a cardinal message communicated by Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long and hard the road may be: For without victory, there is no survival."
68 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Readiness – Heg 2NC
Readiness is key to hegemony—global power signal. SPENCER 00 Policy Analyst for Defense and National Security at Heritage Jack, September 15, http://www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG1394.cfm Military readiness is vital because declines in America’s military readiness signal to the rest of the world that the United States is not prepared to defend its interests. Therefore, potentially hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests, inevitably leading to U.S. involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest, thereby preserving peace.
[Short Card]
Hegemony prevents nuclear war. Zalmay Khalizhad, RAND Analyst, "Losing the Moment?”, Washington Quarterly, spring, 1995 p. ln.
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
[Long Card]
Heg solves multiple scenarios for nuclear war and economic downturn. Poli Sci @ Columbia ‘ Realistically and over the longer term, however, a neo-isolationist approach might well increase the danger of major conflict, require a greater U.S. defense effort, threaten world peace, and eventually undermine U.S. prosperity. By withdrawing from Europe and Asia, the United States would deliberately risk weakening the institutions and solidarity of the world's community of democratic powers and so establishing favorable conditions for the spread of disorder and a possible return to conditions similar to those of the first half of the twentieth century. In the 1920s and 1930s, U.S. isolationism had disastrous consequences for world peace. At that time, the United States was but one of several major powers. Now that the United States is the world's preponderant power, the shock of a U.S. withdrawal could be even greater. What might happen to the world if the United States turned inward? Without the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), rather than cooperating with each other, the West European nations might compete with each other for domination of East-Central Europe and the Middle East. In Western and Central Europe, Germany -- especially since unification -- would be the natural leading power. Either in cooperation or competition with Russia, Germany might seek influence over the territories located between them. German efforts are likely to be aimed at filling the vacuum, stabilizing the region, and precluding its domination by rival powers. Britain and France fear such a development. Given the strength of democracy in Germany and its preoccupation with absorbing the former East Germany, European concerns about Germany appear exaggerated. But it would be a mistake to assume that U.S. withdrawal could not, in the long run, result in the renationalization of Germany's security policy. The same is also true of Japan. Given a U.S. withdrawal from the world, Japan would have to look after its own security and build up its military capabilities. China, Korea, and the nations of Southeast Asia already fear Japanese hegemony. Without U.S. protection, Japan is likely to increase its military capability dramatically -- to balance the growing [Continued no text deleted…]
69 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Readiness – Heg 2NC
Chinese forces and still-significant Russian forces. This could result in arms races, including the possible acquisition by Japan of nuclear weapons. Given Japanese technological prowess, to say nothing of the plutonium stockpile Japan has acquired in the development of its nuclear power industry, it could obviously become a nuclear weapon state relatively quickly, if it should so decide. It could also build long-range missiles and carrier task forces. With the shifting balance of power among Japan, China, Russia, and potential new regional powers such as India, Indonesia, and a united Korea could come significant risks of preventive or proeruptive war. Similarly, European competition for regional dominance could lead to major wars in Europe or East Asia. If the United States stayed out of such a war -- an unlikely prospect -- Europe or East Asia could become dominated by a hostile power. Such a development would threaten U.S. interests. A power that achieved such dominance would seek to exclude the United States from the area and threaten its interests-economic and political -- in the region. Besides, with the domination of Europe or East Asia, such a power might seek global hegemony and the United States would face another global Cold War and the risk of a world war even more catastrophic than the last. In the Persian Gulf, U.S. withdrawal is likely to lead to an intensified struggle for regional domination. Iran and Iraq have, in the past, both sought regional hegemony. Without U.S. protection, the weak oil-rich states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would be unlikely to retain their independence. To preclude this development, the Saudis might seek to acquire, perhaps by purchase, their own nuclear weapons. If either Iraq or Iran controlled the region that dominates the world supply of oil, it could gain a significant capability to damage the U.S. and world economies. Any country that gained hegemony would have vast economic resources at its disposal that could be used to build military capability as well as gain leverage over the United States and other oilimporting nations. Hegemony over the Persian Gulf by either Iran or Iraq would bring the rest of the Arab Middle East under its influence and domination because of the shift in the balance of power. Israeli security problems would multiply and the peace process would be fundamentally undermined, increasing the risk of war between the Arabs and the Israelis. The extension of instability, conflict, and hostile hegemony in East Asia, Europe, and the Persian Gulf would harm the economy of the United States even in the unlikely event that it was able to avoid involvement in major wars and conflicts. Higher oil prices would reduce the U.S. standard of living. Turmoil in Asia and Europe would force major economic readjustment in the United States, perhaps reducing U.S. exports and imports and jeopardizing U.S. investments in these regions. Given that total imports and exports are equal to a quarter of U.S. gross domestic product, the cost of necessary adjustments might be high. The higher level of turmoil in the world would also increase the likelihood of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction ( WMD) and means for their delivery. Already several rogue states such as North Korea and Iran are seeking nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. That danger would only increase if the United States withdrew from the world. The result would be a much more dangerous world in which many states possessed WMD capabilities; the likelihood of their actual use would increase accordingly. If this happened, the security of every nation in the world, including the United States, would be harmed.
70 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Readiness – War 2NC
Readiness key to prevent war The Australian “Lack of military readiness undermines deterrence” September 11, 1995
IF the lead-up to World War II or the history of the Cold War taught us anything, it is that combat readiness in a defence force confers an early operational advantage and may even prevent war.The logic is overwhelming; no one wants to take on an enemy who is manifestly ready. Even numerical or technical superiority does not guarantee success.In the Falklands War of 1982, a smaller and arguably technically inferior British force defeated Argentina partly because the British had a clear objective, but especially because their forces were able to respond rapidly and take advantage of a window of opportunity offered by the weather.Politicians don't like high or even moderate readiness levels. For one thing, they are expensive because of the large consumption of fuel, ammunition and spare parts, and the wear and tear on capital equipment that Australian governments like to keep going well beyond their use-by date. But readiness is not merely a matter of having forces available for deployment.In the post-Cold War era or even in the context of small-scale localised conflict in a world where time and space have been compressed beyond what was imaginable in 1945,
American military dominance is on the brink. A collapse of readiness would lead to conflagrations around the globe The Boston Globe “Fewer Pacific forces ready to respond Admiral cites risks in crisis” (Keating is the admiral in charge of CENTCOM) February 27, 2008 Lexis
In the Pacific, Keating said he does not foresee a major conflict on the horizon, but he said trouble spots remain, including areas where anti-American terrorist groups are operating and tensions linger between large military forces. "There is a significant threat stream for terrorism in the southern Philippines ," Keating said, pointing out that an estimated 8,000 US military personnel are now "providing medical and engineering assistance throughout southern Philippines." Other "sources of greater concern," he added, are the " India Pakistan-border , North-South Korea, [and] tensions [with China] across the Strait of Taiwan." "Overarching all of them [is] the movement of violent extremists, their supporters, and their financial backers" throughout the region, he said. For now, Keating said, he is confident that his command - stretching from California to Africa and from the North to the South poles - can maintain "military pre-eminence." Still, he said, "We have had to adjust [strategic plans] a little bit because of the 30-some thousand Marines and soldiers who are ordinarily in our [area] but are not."
71 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Readiness – War 2NC
Readiness key to prevent war The Australian “Lack of military readiness undermines deterrence” September 11, 1995
IF the lead-up to World War II or the history of the Cold War taught us anything, it is that combat readiness in a defence force confers an early operational advantage and may even prevent war.The logic is overwhelming; no one wants to take on an enemy who is manifestly ready. Even numerical or technical superiority does not guarantee success.In the Falklands War of 1982, a smaller and arguably technically inferior British force defeated Argentina partly because the British had a clear objective, but especially because their forces were able to respond rapidly and take advantage of a window of opportunity offered by the weather.Politicians don't like high or even moderate readiness levels. For one thing, they are expensive because of the large consumption of fuel, ammunition and spare parts, and the wear and tear on capital equipment that Australian governments like to keep going well beyond their use-by date. But readiness is not merely a matter of having forces available for deployment.In the post-Cold War era or even in the context of small-scale localised conflict in a world where time and space have been compressed beyond what was imaginable in 1945,
72 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Readiness – War 2NC
Progress of US army essential to avoid nuclear war; recruits and personnel are basis of US readiness. CNAS, Center for a New American Security, February 12, 2008, “Strengthening the Readiness of the U.S. Military”, Prepared Statement of Michèle A. Flournoy
At the same time, the United States must prepare for a broad range of future contingencies, from sustained, small-unit irregular warfare missions to military-to-military training and advising missions to high-end warfare against regional powers armed with weapons of mass destruction and other asymmetric means. Yet compressed training times between deployments mean that many of our enlisted personnel and officers have the time to train only for the missions immediately before them—in Iraq and Afghanistan—and not for the missions over the horizon. These just-in-time training conditions have created a degree of strategic risk, which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff noted in his recent posture statement. As we at the Center for a New American Security wrote in our June, 2007 report on the ground forces, the United States is a global power with global interests, and we need our armed forces to be ready to respond whenever and wherever our strategic interests might be threatened. The absence of an adequate strategic reserve of ready ground forces must be addressed on an urgent basis. Readiness is the winning combination of personnel , equipment, and training in adequate quantity and quality for each unit . Each of these components of readiness has been under sustained and increasing stress over the past several years. For the ground forces, the readiness picture is largely—although not solely—centered on personnel while the Navy and the Air Force’s readiness challenges derive primarily from aging equipment. The Army continues to experience the greatest strain and the greatest recruitment challenges.
73 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Readiness – Pakistan 2NC
Unchecked a nuclear war would break out between India and Pakistan ending all life on earth in a nuclear winter Ghulam Nabi Fai [Executive Director, Kashmiri American Council] WASHINGTON TIMES, September 8, 2001 www.mediamonitors.net/fai6.htm
The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States would enjoy no sanctuary.
74 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Heg Solves War
Hegemony prevents nuclear war. Zalmay Khalizhad, RAND Analyst, "Losing the Moment?”, Washington Quarterly, spring, 1995 p. ln.
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
75 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Heg Solves Prolif
Heg solves prolif—empirically proven Dowd 7 [Alan W., Senior fellow at the Sagamore Institute for Policy Research, “Declinism,” Hoover Institute, August/September 2007, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8816802.html] //
<< Whether or not we Americans like everything our culture produces, its attractiveness around the world is undeniable. Consider the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative, which was born just weeks after the fall of Baghdad. To date, some 60 nations have signed on to the psi to strengthen their capacity to secure the seas and intercept weapons of mass destruction and their precursors while in transit. Consider the U.S.-led Container Security Initiative, which deploys U.S. Customs agents to the world’s largest, busiest ports to screen goods and containers coming into the United States. Today, 43 ports in dozens of nations participate in the program, creating a ring of security well beyond America’s shores. Consider Libya’s preemptive surrender of its wmd arsenal in late 2003, which happened without the firing of a shot and, tellingly, came after Saddam’s overthrow and capture. Consider North Korea, which has been a challenge of the highest order for nearly six decades. It is a challenge that the current administration, like the previous ten, has not been able to fully solve — an understatement underscored by Pyongyang’s penchant for testing missiles and brandishing nukes. But if diplomacy is an end in itself, as so many critics of the current administration seem to believe, then North Korea represents an example of America’s diplomatic power. Recall that U.S. diplomacy cajoled four other regional powers into talks, pressured North Korea into a multilateral setting (which it opposed) and then extracted Pyongyang’s promise to give up its nuclear weapons. Whether the North Koreans end up keeping this promise is a subject for another essay. What is relevant here is that Washington pursued a major policy objective to persuade all of the regional powers of its importance to them and to secure a promise from North Korea. In the 1990s, that was hailed by many in the foreign-policy establishment as something to applaud. In the 2000s, it was dismissed as evidence of U.S. weakness. With regard to “soft power,” from McDonald’s to Microsoft, American culture is in high demand. Whether or not we Americans like everything our culture produces, its attractiveness around the world is undeniable — and yet another expression of U.S. power. We see this in the global popularity of Google, which was created by a pair of Stanford students without any government help at all but so dominates the web that the European Union is pouring $294 million into birthing an answer; in the pc primacy of Dell and hp; in the 330 million (and counting) pcs running Microsoft Windows ; in Apple iTunes, which has swept into 20 countries and displaced local powers such as Japan’s own Sony.15 We see this, too, in the life and times of Yao Ming, who was recognized in 2005 as China’s “vanguard worker” — an honor once awarded to citizens wholeheartedly embracing communism — yet is a Texas multimillionaire who plays for the Houston Rockets. Indeed, America has a magnetic pull on peoples of every race, religion and region. Thirty-two million of those who live in the U.S. were born somewhere else, notes Ferguson. When they arrive, these would-be Americans find a culture eager to graft in the new and the different — a nation where a refugee from Czechoslovakia could be entrusted to oversee U.S. foreign policy as secretary of state, where an Austrian bodybuilder could become governor of the most populous state, where an Afghan immigrant could represent U.S. interests in Kabul and Baghdad, where a Polish immigrant would be asked to head the Joint Chiefs or restore what 9/11 maimed.>>
76 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Heg Solves War + Econ
Heg solves multiple scenarios for nuclear war and economic downturn. Poli Sci @ Columbia ‘ Realistically and over the longer term, however, a neo-isolationist approach might well increase the danger of major conflict, require a greater U.S. defense effort, threaten world peace, and eventually undermine U.S. prosperity. By withdrawing from Europe and Asia, the United States would deliberately risk weakening the institutions and solidarity of the world's community of democratic powers and so establishing favorable conditions for the spread of disorder and a possible return to conditions similar to those of the first half of the twentieth century. In the 1920s and 1930s, U.S. isolationism had disastrous consequences for world peace. At that time, the United States was but one of several major powers. Now that the United States is the world's preponderant power, the shock of a U.S. withdrawal could be even greater. What might happen to the world if the United States turned inward? Without the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), rather than cooperating with each other, the West European nations might compete with each other for domination of East-Central Europe and the Middle East. In Western and Central Europe, Germany -- especially since unification -- would be the natural leading power. Either in cooperation or competition with Russia, Germany might seek influence over the territories located between them. German efforts are likely to be aimed at filling the vacuum, stabilizing the region, and precluding its domination by rival powers. Britain and France fear such a development. Given the strength of democracy in Germany and its preoccupation with absorbing the former East Germany, European concerns about Germany appear exaggerated. But it would be a mistake to assume that U.S. withdrawal could not, in the long run, result in the renationalization of Germany's security policy. The same is also true of Japan. Given a U.S. withdrawal from the world, Japan would have to look after its own security and build up its military capabilities. China, Korea, and the nations of Southeast Asia already fear Japanese hegemony. Without U.S. protection, Japan is likely to increase its military capability dramatically -- to balance the growing Chinese forces and still-significant Russian forces. This could result in arms races, including the possible acquisition by Japan of nuclear weapons. Given Japanese technological prowess, to say nothing of the plutonium stockpile Japan has acquired in the development of its nuclear power industry, it could obviously become a nuclear weapon state relatively quickly, if it should so decide. It could also build long-range missiles and carrier task forces. With the shifting balance of power among Japan, China, Russia, and potential new regional powers such as India, Indonesia, and a united Korea could come significant risks of preventive or proeruptive war. Similarly, European competition for regional dominance could lead to major wars in Europe or East Asia. If the United States stayed out of such a war -- an unlikely prospect -- Europe or East Asia could become dominated by a hostile power. Such a development would threaten U.S. interests. A power that achieved such dominance would seek to exclude the United States from the area and threaten its interests-economic and political -- in the region. Besides, with the domination of Europe or East Asia, such a power might seek global hegemony and the United States would face another global Cold War and the risk of a world war even more catastrophic than the last. In the Persian Gulf, U.S. withdrawal is likely to lead to an intensified struggle for regional domination. Iran and Iraq have, in the past, both sought regional hegemony. Without U.S. protection, the weak oil-rich states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would be unlikely to retain their independence. To preclude this development, the Saudis might seek to acquire, perhaps by purchase, their own nuclear weapons. If either Iraq or Iran controlled the region that dominates the world supply of oil, it could gain a significant capability to damage the U.S. and world economies. Any country that gained hegemony would have vast economic resources at its disposal that could be used to build military capability as well as gain leverage over the United States and other oilimporting nations. Hegemony over the Persian Gulf by either Iran or Iraq would bring the rest of the Arab Middle East under its influence and domination because of the shift in the balance of power. Israeli security problems would multiply and the peace process would be fundamentally undermined, increasing the risk of war between the Arabs and the Israelis. The extension of instability, conflict, and hostile hegemony in East Asia, Europe, and the Persian Gulf would harm the economy of the United States even in the unlikely event that it was able to avoid involvement in major wars and conflicts. Higher oil prices would reduce the U.S. standard of living. Turmoil in Asia and Europe would force major economic readjustment in the United States, perhaps reducing U.S. exports and imports and jeopardizing U.S. investments in these regions. Given that total imports and exports are equal to a quarter of U.S. gross domestic product, the cost of necessary adjustments might be high. The higher level of turmoil in the world would also increase the likelihood of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction ( WMD) and means for their delivery. Already several rogue states such as North Korea and Iran are seeking nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. That danger would only increase if the United States withdrew from the world. The result would be a much more dangerous world in which many states possessed WMD capabilities; the likelihood of their actual use would increase accordingly. If this happened, the security of every nation in the world, including the United States, would be harmed.
77 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Draft – Democracy
The draft would destroy American democracy Doug Bandow [Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan and as a Senior Policy Analyst in the 1980 Reagan for President campaign, senior fellow at CATO] “Draft Would Cast a Chill Over the Military” October 16, 2002 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4218
Although many questions about how to fight a war with Iraq and how to manage the aftermath remain unanswered, one thing is clear: The United States will win this battle with volunteers. Whenever the U.S. goes to war, someone proposes a draft. That was the case a dozen years ago in the Gulf War. It's happening again, most recently when Jeffrey Smith, onetime general counsel to both the CIA and the Senate Armed Services Committee, advocated forcing people into uniform not only to conquer Iraq but to serve in the Peace Corps and rebuild Afghanistan. Here is why that's a bad idea: The U.S. has the most powerful and effective military on Earth. The soldiers and sailors who use high-tech weapons today are better-educated than the draft-era force. More than 90% of Army and Navy recruits last year had high school diplomas, as did 96% of Marine and 99% of Air Force recruits. Recruiting was tougher in 1998 and 1999, but even then the military's problem could have been solved by lowering standards. The all-volunteer force is superior in another way: The armed services are filled with people who desire to serve, reducing discipline problems. Those who are discontented are released. With conscription, the services can ill afford to kick out even the worst performers, since doing so would reward those wanting out. Northwestern University sociologist Charles Moskos and Paul Glastris, editor in chief of the Washington Monthly, recognize the need for high-quality volunteers. But they suggest a draft to bring in sufficient numbers of recruits for support and peacekeeping duties to "free up professional soldiers to do the fighting without sacrificing other U.S. commitments." More sensible, however, would be to ask: Which commitments are worth meeting? For instance, no vital national interest is at stake in the Balkans, certainly not forcing three hostile communities to forever live together in the artificial country of Bosnia and ensuring that Kosovo remain an autonomous part of Serbia against the wishes of its inhabitants. Moreover, why should the U.S. rather than Europeans undertake that? Similarly, why do 37,000 troops remain on station in South Korea, a nation with 40 times the gross domestic product, twice the population and a vast technological edge over its northern antagonist? Smith and others oppose using reserves to supplement our volunteer forces in Iraq because that would make recruiting more difficult. But why even have reserves if they aren't used when necessary? Conscription advocates also criticize a so-called underclass military, even though rigorous educational and test standards mean that few of the underclass ever suit up. Although not perfectly representative -- in terms of percentage there are more blacks and fewer Latinos in the military than in the population, for instance -- those in the services are generally from families with middle-class incomes and social backgrounds. To be perfectly fair, a draft would have to target poor as well as rich. Some complain that only volunteers are being asked to die for their country. Yet New York City firefighters volunteered to defend their fellow citizens, and 343 of them died on Sept. 11, 2001, more than the number of servicemen and servicewomen killed in the Gulf War, Kosovo and the war on terrorism combined. Should only volunteers fight fires and crime? Devote their lives to the poor? A free society doesn't mean there are no shirkers, content to benefit from the sacrifices of others. But that is the price of freedom . Allowing a Washington elite to decide how everyone else should spend his or her life is a dubious form of "fairness." Defending the United States means defending a free society built on individual liberty. Renewing conscription would destroy the very thing we are supposed to be protecting.
78 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Draft – Democracy
The draft would destroy the American military James Jay Carafano [Ph.D. Assistant Professor at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., and served as Director of Military Studies at the Army's Center of Military History. He also taught at Mount Saint Mary College in New York and served as a Fleet Professor at the U.S. Naval War College. He is a Visiting Professor at the National Defense University and Georgetown University] “Draft Reinstatement Is a Bad Idea” May 3, 2004 http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed050304b.cfm
Bad ideas flourish in tough times. Calls to reinstate the draft offer a case in point. Americans today rely on the service and sacrifice of our military. The global war on terrorism has put our soldiers, sailors, marines, Air Force and Coast Guard into harm's way in numbers unprecedented since the Vietnam War. National Guard and reserve troops have been posted overseas at record levels. All the men and women of today's military volunteered to serve. They swore an oath to put aside their personal aspirations and obligations for the service of all Americans. But some politicians argue that these volunteers are victims, and legislation has been introduced in both houses of Congress that would resume military conscription for the first time since the Vietnam era. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., says we need a draft because the burden of fighting the nation's wars falls disproportionately on the poor and minorities. The rich, he argues, opt out of war. That argument denigrates the service of all men and women in uniform. People do not become soldiers because they can't do anything else. Anyone who has served a day in the military knows there are easier ways to make a buck. They don't see themselves as hapless mercenaries. Additionally, a draft is more -- not less -- likely to place the burden of military service on the poor. In his book "Unheralded Victory," combat veteran Mark Woodruff points out that 76 percent of those who served in Vietnam had working-class backgrounds. Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., proposed reinstating conscription because he worries the military relies too heavily on the use of the National Guard and reserves. The sacrifice, he argued, needs to be shared. Sharing sacrifice, however, is exactly why we have reserve forces. The reserves offer Americans an opportunity to pursue civilian careers and serve the nation in moments of need. That's why we call them citizen-soldiers. They, too, take up arms for their nation because they want to, not because they have to. In Vietnam, the United States had to use the draft because the National Guard wasn't prepared for such an undertaking. After the conflict, the military was reorganized so guard units could be used in any major operation. Employing the guard and reserves is how we ensure the burden of national service is shared. Plus, we should be wary of those who urge us to scrap the all-volunteer military force that has served this nation well for three decades. Nearly every expert who studies the issue concludes that all-volunteer -- or professional -- militaries perform more efficiently, more bravely and with less corruption and other breakdowns than conscripts. The U.S. military stands as a shining example of this. Our all-volunteer service is the most skilled, disciplined and motivated force on the planet. From the jungles of Panama to the sands of Iraq to the skies over Kosovo and the mountains of Afghanistan, our military has performed nearly flawlessly over the last 30 years. Abandoning this -- disrupting this professional force -- makes no sense. The United States has resisted a draft for most of its history because the draft is not part of our tradition. Americans view voluntary military service as a hallmark of democracy. Conscription makes sense only in moments of extreme national peril such as the Civil War and World War II. During the Second World War, for example, virtually all able-bodied men of draft age -- about 12 million -- were needed to defend the republic. In short, the draft was fair because virtually everybody that could serve had to serve. But those moments are rare. Imposing a draft at any other time creates not shared sacrifice but a lottery for the unlucky. Returning to the draft represents a failure of democracy, not a means to ensure its future. Citizenship carries both duties and privileges, but democracy thrives only when citizens hold both equally precious. When virtue is imposed, it ceases to be virtue. If the United States cannot field an all-volunteer force to fight the global war on terror, then we have problems far worse than those that trouble Sen. Hollings and Rep. Rangel. It would mean we have lost the will to defend our nation. No draft can give a country the will to fight; only its citizens do that. If we start thinking of military service as anything less than virtuous, we will have suffered a crippling and perhaps fatal defeat.
79 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Draft – Democracy
The draft would undermine the liberty and freedom of the constitution Tim Kane [Ph.D., is Director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation] “No Justification for a Military Draft” Nov 28 2006
Regardless of Rangel’s arguments, justification of a “just draft” presents a philosophical dilemma. Coercing people to serve is detrimental to individual liberty—this is the problem of social justice based on group demographics rather than individuals. The U.S. military is one of the most colorblind, merit-based institutions in the nation. Soldiers surrender their individuality voluntarily to join a team, with a team mentality. Mandating service will diminish this choice. Even if Rangel and his colleagues in power rename their project “national service,” it would still be unjust, because forced volunteerism is inauthentic. Certainly, Americans will sometimes accept restrictions on their liberty, such as the speed limit or income tax, but only to advance the common good. Empowering the central government to oversee and restrict the employment of all young Americans for two years is not consistent with common good restrictions and is instead a dangerous violation of individual liberty. The Pentagon, the President, Congress, and the new Democratic leadership need to repudiate the idea of a draft as well as the notion of mandatory volunteerism. All young Americans deserve the peace of mind that their personal freedom is not in jeopardy.
Undermining the Constitution causes extinction Henkin 88. (Columbia, 1988, (Atlantic Comm Qtly, Spring)
Lawyers, even constitutional lawyers, argue "technically," with references to text and principles of construction, drawing lines, and insisting on sharp distinctions. Such discussion sometimes seems ludicrous when it addresses issues of life and death and Armaggedon. But behind the words of the Constitution and the technicalities of constitutional construction lie the basic values of the United States–limited government even at the cost of inefficiency; safeguards against autarchy and oligarchy; democratic values represented differently in the presidency and in Congress, as well as in the intelligent participation and consent of the governed. In the nuclear age the technicalities of constitutionalism and of constitutional jurisprudence safeguard also the values and concerns of civilized people committed to human survival.
80 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Draft – Freedom
Draft kills freedom Doug Bandow [Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan and as a Senior Policy Analyst in the 1980 Reagan for President campaign, senior fellow at CATO] “Draft Would Cast a Chill Over the Military” October 16, 2002 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4218
Although many questions about how to fight a war with Iraq and how to manage the aftermath remain unanswered, one thing is clear: The United States will win this battle with volunteers. Whenever the U.S. goes to war, someone proposes a draft. That was the case a dozen years ago in the Gulf War. It's happening again, most recently when Jeffrey Smith, onetime general counsel to both the CIA and the Senate Armed Services Committee, advocated forcing people into uniform not only to conquer Iraq but to serve in the Peace Corps and rebuild Afghanistan. Here is why that's a bad idea: The U.S. has the most powerful and effective military on Earth. The soldiers and sailors who use high-tech weapons today are better-educated than the draft- era force. More than 90% of Army and Navy recruits last year had high school diplomas, as did 96% of Marine and 99% of Air Force recruits. Recruiting was tougher in 1998 and 1999, but even then the military's problem could have been solved by lowering standards. The all-volunteer force is superior in another way: The armed services are filled with people who desire to serve, reducing discipline problems. Those who are discontented are released. With conscription, the services can ill afford to kick out even the worst performers, since doing so would reward those wanting out. Northwestern University sociologist Charles Moskos and Paul Glastris, editor in chief of the Washington Monthly, recognize the need for high-quality volunteers. But they suggest a draft to bring in sufficient numbers of recruits for support and peacekeeping duties to "free up professional soldiers to do the fighting without sacrificing other U.S. commitments." More sensible, however, would be to ask: Which commitments are worth meeting? For instance, no vital national interest is at stake in the Balkans, certainly not forcing three hostile communities to forever live together in the artificial country of Bosnia and ensuring that Kosovo remain an autonomous part of Serbia against the wishes of its inhabitants. Moreover, why should the U.S. rather than Europeans undertake that? Similarly, why do 37,000 troops remain on station in South Korea, a nation with 40 times the gross domestic product, twice the population and a vast technological edge over its northern antagonist? Smith and others oppose using reserves to supplement our volunteer forces in Iraq because that would make recruiting more difficult. But why even have reserves if they aren't used when necessary? Conscription advocates also criticize a so-called underclass military, even though rigorous educational and test standards mean that few of the underclass ever suit up. Although not perfectly representative -- in terms of percentage there are more blacks and fewer Latinos in the military than in the population, for instance -- those in the services are generally from families with middle-class incomes and social backgrounds. To be perfectly fair, a draft would have to target poor as well as rich. Some complain that only volunteers are being asked to die for their country. Yet New York City firefighters volunteered to defend their fellow citizens, and 343 of them died on Sept. 11, 2001, more than the number of servicemen and servicewomen killed in the Gulf War, Kosovo and the war on terrorism combined. Should only volunteers fight fires and crime? Devote their lives to the poor? A free society doesn't mean there are no shirkers, content to benefit from the sacrifices of others. But that is the price of freedom . Allowing a Washington elite to decide how everyone else should spend his or her life is a dubious form of "fairness." Defending the United States means defending a free society built on individual liberty. Renewing conscription would destroy the very thing we are supposed to be protecting.
81 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – Draft – Hegemony
The draft destroys American military might. Vietnam proves James Jay Carafano [Ph.D. Assistant Professor at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., and served as Director of Military Studies at the Army's Center of Military History. He also taught at Mount Saint Mary College in New York and served as a Fleet Professor at the U.S. Naval War College. He is a Visiting Professor at the National Defense University and Georgetown University] “Draft Reinstatement Is a Bad Idea” May 3, 2004 http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed050304b.cfm
In 1977, I was commissioned into one of the worst armies in American history. The United States left Vietnam with a demoralized, poorly trained, ineptly led and over-stretched military. Over the next decade, however, I participated in a remarkable transition. America abandoned the draft and began fielding a professional, well-equipped, all-volunteer force. In my 25-year career, I saw the worst of times become the best of times. It is inconceivable that anyone could suggest that America abandon a winning formula. But that, in effect, is what advocates of a new draft are suggesting. One of the cornerstones of our all-volunteer force is the Reserves -- men and women called to active duty only for training or deployments. Otherwise, they pursue their civilian careers -- part-time soldiers fully committed to serving the nation. When not deployed, the cost of retaining Reserve forces is a fraction of the expense of full-time, active-duty troops. Maintaining a large Reserve, about 47 percent of the total military, allowed the Pentagon to pour more resources into buying new equipment and improving training. The results speak for themselves. Today, we have the best military on the planet. Most important, the Reserve force allows for the rapid expansion of force in times of trouble. The War on Terror has presented us with one of those troubled moments. Reserves have been called to serve in numbers unprecedented since World War II. The latest call-up began July 6, when the Army started notifying about 5,600 Americans to get ready to go. They are drawn from a pool of about 100,000 men and women called the Individual Ready Reserve, or IRR. The IRR makes up a small part of the approximately 1.3 million that make up the military’s Reserve. They are individuals who still have an obligation to military service but are not assigned to specific units and do not conduct periodic training. Mostly, they are individuals with special skills now in high demand. Announcement of the IRR mobilization prompted shrill criticisms that the military is overstretched, as well as ill- considered recommendations to bring back the draft to increase the size of the Army permanently. But we are using our Reserves exactly like we’re supposed to -- calling on them when the nation truly needs them. Yes, calling Reserves to active duty often results in hardship and sacrifice. That is the nature of volunteer service -- a tradition that dates back to the first colonial militias. Volunteer military service is a reminder that citizenship carries both privileges and responsibilities and that in a free society we depend on the people to determine how and when to meet their obligations. In the American tradition, conscription is appropriate only in moments of extreme national crisis, such as World War II, when the nation needed 10 million men in uniform. A draft today, moreover, likely would be as socially divisive as Vietnam-era conscription. It would result in a less well-trained and more costly military; new conscripts would have to be trained every year to replace those who leave. And it wouldn’t provide the critical skills we need -- skills that require long years of training and experience.
82 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – RMA 2NC
People are the most important part of RMA US Navy [Donald G. Owen, LT Anthony Saenz, , and Mark R. Sinclair, Joint Battle Center] “Underpinning the RMA – Advancements in the Transformation of Information into Knowledge for Command and Control” 1999
The success of the RMA will rely on high-quality and well-trained people. The intellectual acumen, physical skills, and motivation of the soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine will be even more important as we move into the 21st century. The information age places a high premium on persons that have a technical aptitude. Changes in recruiting, training, and developing people; how units operate and organize; and how organizations doctrinally will drive changes in professional development. Although how career paths and professional development processes may look in the future is unclear, implications will exist for the career warriors. xiii Conclusion The RMA will be distinguished by a profound change in the conversion of information to knowledge for Command and Control. Essential elements of this transformation are currently becoming discernable and are facilitated by several thrusts in technology, combined with other trends in technology and information handling. Several projects and experiments are being conducted throughout DoD aimed at different facets of this transformation. Implications of this revolutionary transformation are becoming clearer and affect a wide range of DOTMLP issues.
RMA is key to prevent global conflicts. S. J. Deitchman, independent defense consultant, formerly worked at DOD and the Institute for Defense Analyses, 2004. [Issues in Science & Technology 20:4, Completing the Transformation of U.S. Military Forces, p. Academic Search Premier]
First, potential opponents may field formidable armed forces to meet those of the United States. For example, North Korea remains an enigmatic but powerful threat to U.S. interests in the Pacific region. Another example in that area might be a China that, although friendly in a guarded sort of way now, could easily become a military opponent over the issue of Taiwan. That situation can blow up at any time from misunderstanding of the positions of any of the three principals--China, Taiwan, or the United States. Without U.S. fielding of forces obviously able to meet the North Koreans or the Chinese militarily, the growing capabilities of those countries could cause Japan to wonder about the military reliability of the United States as an ally. Although Japan's constitution puts a limit on the growth of the country's offensive military capability, the government could remove that limit if it felt threatened, and Japan has the technological capability to develop advanced weapons, possibly including nuclear weapons. North Korea and China are but two examples of sudden military conflict that might arise in the arc of instability that reaches from North Africa through the Middle East, south and central Asia, all the way to the Korean peninsula. A third example of such a potential opponent arising without much strategic warning could be Pakistan if its government were to fall to the country's Islamist fundamentalist factions. This is not the place to discuss the likelihood of such threats arising, but we must take note of the potential developments that could evolve into military threats. As has been highlighted above, several of these possible opponents are actively acquiring some of the advanced Soviet-era and more recent systems that can exploit the vulnerabilities of today's U.S. forces. And we must certainly expect that China, with its fast- growing, technology-based economy, will soon be able to field its own versions of such systems. The problem for the United States, then, is to track and maintain superiority over the growing capability of potential military opponents. Current U.S. military systems are able to match those of such opposition now, but if the United States stands down on advancing its capability, that increasingly precarious balance could change. Worse, it might not realize that the balance had changed until it was already engaged in battle. The argument that if the United States remains alert, it can identify developing threats in time to respond fails to recognize how long it takes to respond. It takes on the order of 10 to 20 years to field major new military systems. It can take a decade just to field a significant improvement in an existing system, such as a new aircraft or ship radar system. Yet the strategic and military need for such systems could arise in a year or two, or even as a total surprise, as the country learned at Pearl Harbor and feared throughout the Cold War.
83 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Impact – RMA K Heg
RMA is key to future of U.S. hegemony. Kapil Kak, Director of the Institute of Defense Study and Analysis, 2K, Revolution in Military Affairs, an appraisal Strategic Analysis: A Monthly Journal of the IDSA
The last decade of the 20th century has witnessed an unprecedented transformation in international security. An unexpected transition from a bipolar to a unipolar America-dominated world order, following the implosion of the former Soviet Union, trends toward a more 'polycentric' global dispensation and a crucial metamorphosis in the very character of warfare appear to be unleashing strong forces of strategic fluidity and uncertainty. The foremost global trend transforming the security framework is the dramatic growth in information technology and the revolution in military affairs (RMA) it has created. Technological change may well revolutionise warfare in the 21st century. Countries that can exploit emerging technologies and synergise the same with innovative operational doctrines and organisational adaptation could doubtless achieve far higher levels of relative military effectiveness. It would be seen that, historically, leading countries, including the United States, had adequate time to adapt in the midst of war to military technologies that developed in peace time. Such a luxury is now precluded by the sheer pace of technological transformation and the paradigmatic change in warfare itself. In the coming years, it would be crucial for political leaders, military establishments, civil services and defence research scientists to stay alert to evolving and exploiting emerging technologies so that technological asymmetry can be sustained against competitors and adversaries.
84 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 A2 – Iraq Kills Readiness
1. Obama solves - withdrawing from Iraq now.
2. Deployment is irrelevant, our 1NC Engel evidence says it’s a question of troop amounts to deploy.
3. Iraq doesn’t affect military readiness, only by not lowering the standards for recruitment can America maintain power Peter W. Singer [Senior fellow at the Brookings institute and the director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative] “Bent but Not Broken: The Military Challenge for the Next Commander-in-Chief” 2008 \www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/~/media/Files/Projects/Opportunity08/PB_MilitaryReadiness_PSinger.pdf
Although the next U.S. President will become Commander-in-Chief of a military unmatched in its power and capability, this excellence is under siege. The U.S. military has been stretched thin and worn down by the combination of extensive deployments over the last six years and a deferral of the hard questions of how a nation supports a military at war. Downward trends in recruiting and retention show a force under great stress. More than a simple matter of raw numbers, this has a long- term effect on the quality of our military forces. And, while defense budgeting remains focused on acquiring major new weapons systems that will not be available until many years hence, a looming equipment gap harms our security in the here and now. The war in Iraq has created many of these challenges, but they will continue years after operations there end. A critical test for the next Commander-in-Chief will go beyond deciding when and where to use military force; it will require taking the actions necessary to ensure that the U.S. military does not become broken under the new President’s watch and that it remains both ready and capable. In the very early days of the new Administration, the next President should commission plans of action for adequately filling the military’s personnel and equipment needs. Specifically, the new President should: formulate a national call to service that would support recruitment efforts ƒ ensure that recruiting standards are not lowered restore funding of troop levels now deemed “temporary”
85 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 A2 – Disad Is Racist
1. The military offers people opportunities for advancement and a way out of poverty – that’s why people join – that’s all of our link evidence.
2. The military has always been ahead of society in terms of equality and giving minorities an opportunity to succeed. David L. Leal The University of Texas at Austin American Public Opinion toward the Military: Differences by Race, Gender, and Class? Armed Forces & Society 2005; http://afs.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/32/1/123
For individuals, the contemporary military has been an especially hospitable institution, particularly in comparison to the larger society. As Moskos and Butler noted, “At a time when Afro-Americans were still arguing for their educational rights before the Supreme Court and marching for their social and political rights in the Deep South, the Army had become desegregated with little fanfare.” The results were so successful that “if officers are the executives of the armed forces, the armed forces boast more black executives than any other institution in the country.”13 There is also evidence that African Americans have, for some time, perceived the military as more egalitarian than civilian society, particularly in terms of advancement opportunities and economic stability.14 Not only has discrimination in the military dramatically abated, but such service also provides an avenue for upward mobility that is not always available in civilian society. It provides a standard of living and an array of social services not commonly available for those without higher education, and according to Ricks, “the army may be the only institution in America where we can see what Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society could have been.”15 Military service may also enable African Americans and Latinos to better succeed in the civilian world.16 This may be the result of the training received in the military or the postservice educational benefits such as the G.I. Bill. The military may also serve as a “bridging environment”17 that allows minority veterans to better integrate into civilian society.18 One of the few previous studies of this topic, however, showed that African Americans were no more or less likely than whites to believe there were opportunities for minorities in the military.
3. Empirically, the military has lead on issues of race – desegregation in combat, educational opportunities, job training, etc.
4. Hegemony solves the impact – absent U.S. leadership, a collapse of fair democracy is inevitable – only by maintaining our global leadership can we solve racism globally.
86 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 **Affirmative Answers**
87 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Non-Unique - Economy
Economic recovery inevitable stimulus and markets – takes out disads uniqueness – 1NC Boston Globe evidence says the reason people join is for job security in a troubled economy. Balli Press Release, July 5, 2009 http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/balli-steel-forecasts-economic-recovery-in- five-phases-106823.php
LONDON, ENGLAND, July 05, 2009 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Balli Steel, one of the world's largest privately owned independent commodity traders, has forecast that the global economic recovery will sequentially occur in five phases, with increased demand for steel in each sector acting as a barometer or indicator of such recovery. Balli Steel highlights that global annualised steel production this year is forecast to be 1.1 billion tonnes, down on last year's record 1.3 billion tonnes, but significantly higher than the 800 million tonnes recorded in 2000. Balli considers the steel markets of North America, Europe and the Gulf Co-operation Countries (GCC) the hardest hit by, not only the credit crisis, but by overstocking and speculation on future prices. Balli expects the market in the GCC economies to see a gradual improvement while North America and Europe will experience continued problems. Forecasts indicate that Japan and South Korea will also continue to face economic challenges since their industries are more dependent on Western Europe and North America. Vahid Alaghband, Group Chairman of Balli Steel, said: "The credit crunch and global economic downturn has had a 'Tsunami Effect' covering all key economic sectors: steel and other commodities, property, automotive, capital goods and finance. At present steel producers are operating only at around 50-60% of their capacity. We consider the implementation of government driven stimulus packages, which will see significant public sector investment in civil engineering and infrastructure projects, will procure the first phase of the global economic recovery." Balli Steel considers that the second phase will be characterised by a gradual recovery of the housing market that is expected to begin in Q4 2009, and which will be led by key cities such as London, New York, Singapore and Hong Kong. Vahid Alaghband observed: "With prices down by up to 40% in certain markets, overnight interest rates at the near zero level, and yields at up to 10%, property has become a good long term investment again. With supply at a record low we expect the market to grow steadily through to beginning 2010 and well into 2014. The return to the market of competitive mortgages will prove a further boost." Phase three of the recovery will be characterised by increased demand for products that rely on unsecured loans and consumer-credit. Balli Steel calculates that the retail, white goods and automotive industry will begin to see a return to recovery to begin around Q2 2010. Balli also expects a recovery of the global shipbuilding industry, providing a major boost to steel traders, in the first quarter of 2011, marking the return to more normal international trading patterns and leading the fourth phase of the global recovery. The fifth phase will be a return to more normal investment in capital goods by producers as they gain confidence in the state of the world economy. "We are by no means out of the woods yet and there is a lot of pain ahead of us in 2009 and 2010. But in the last few weeks as I speak to business counterparts the general consensus appears to be that we are no longer in a state of uncontrolled free-fall and we are at or close to the bottom in a number of markets," said Vahid Alaghband. About Balli: Balli Holdings, is a large private, multi-national corporation, headquartered in London, but with offices in Dubai and other key business hubs around the world. Balli was established in 1982 and operates a number of affiliated companies specialising in commodity trading, industrial, real estate and private equity with operations in over 20 countries. Together with its affiliated companies, Balli employs over 2,000 people worldwide.
88 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Non-Unique – Jobs
Stimulus means job growth inevitable. CQ News, July 5 http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003158539
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. acknowledged Sunday that the administration made a mistake in assessing the depth and gravity of the nation’s economic crisis but predicted stepped-up job creation as more money in the economic stimulus package rolls out. “...the truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited ... but we are now only about 120 days into the recovery package,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.” “No one anticipated, no one expected that that recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having distributed the bulk of the money.” He conceded that the current unemployment rate, 9.5 percent, is “much too high,” and “what we have to do, is we have to, as this [stimulus] rolls out, put more pace on the ball . The second hundred days, you’re going to see a lot more jobs created. And the reason you are is now all of these contracts for the over several thousand highway projects that have approved.”
89 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Hegemony Sustainable
Primacy is sustainable – US is dominant in all sectors Stephen G. Brooks & William C. Wohlforth 08 Associate Professors in the Department of Government @ Dartmouth College (World Out of Balance, p. 27-31)
“Nothing has ever existed like this disparity of power; nothing,” historian Paul Kennedy observes: “I have returned to all of the comparative defense spending and military personnel statistics over the past 500 years that I compiled in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, and no other nation comes close.” Though assessments of U.S. power have changed since those words were written in 2002, they remain true. Even when capabilities are understood broadly to include economic, technological, and other wellsprings of national power, they are concentrated in the United States to a degree never before experienced in the history of the modern system of states and thus never contemplated by balance-of-power theorists. The United spends more on defense that all the other major military powers combined, and most of those powers are its allies. Its massive investments in the human, institutional, and technological requisites of military power, cumulated over many decades, make any effort to match U.S. capabilities even more daunting that the gross spending numbers imply. Military research and development (R&D) may best capture the scale of the long-term investment that give the United States a dramatic qualitative edge in military capabilities. As table 2.1 shows, in 2004 U.S. military R&D expenditures were more than six times greater than those of Germany, Japan, France, and Britain combined. By some estimates over half the military R&D expenditures in the world are American. And this disparity has been sustained for decades: over the past 30 years, for example, the United States has invested over three times more than the entire European Union on military R&D. These vast commitments have created a preeminence in military capabilities vis-à-vis all the other major powers that is unique after the seventeenth century. While other powers could contest U.S. forces near their homelands, especially over issues on which nuclear deterrence is credible, the United States is and will long remain the only state capable of projecting major military power globally. This capacity arises from “command of the commons” – that is, unassailable military dominance over the sea, air, and space. As Barry Posen puts it, Command of the commons is the key military enabler of the U.S global power position. It allows the United States to exploit more fully other sources of power, including its own economic and military might as well as the economic and military might of its allies. Command of the commons also helps the United States to weaken its adversaries, by restricting their access to economic, military, and political assistance….Command of the commons provides the United States with more useful military potential for a hegemonic foreign policy than any other offshore power has ever had. Posen’s study of American military primacy ratifies Kennedy’s emphasis on the historical importance of the economic foundations of national power. It is the combination of military and economic potential that sets the United States apart from its predecessors at the top of the international system. Previous leading states were either great commercial and naval powers or great military powers on land, never both. The British Empire in its heyday and the United States during the Cold War, for example, shared the world with other powers that matched or exceeded them in some areas. Even at the height of the Pax Britannica, the United Kingdom was outspent, outmanned, and outgunned by both France and Russia. Similarly, at the dawn of the Cold War the United States was dominant economically as well as in air and naval capabilities. But the Soviet Union retained overall military parity, and thanks to geography and investment in land power it had a superior ability to seize territory in Eurasia. The United States’ share of world GDP in 2006, 27.5 percent, surpassed that of any leading state in modern history, with the sole exception of its own position after 1945 (when World War II had temporarily depressed every other major economy). The size of the U.S economy means that its massive military capabilities required roughly 4 percent of its GDP in 2005, far less than the nearly 10 percent it averaged over the peak years of the Cold War, 1950-70, and the burden borne by most of the major powers of the past. As Kennedy sums up, “Being Number One at great cost is one thing; being the world’s single superpower on the cheap is astonishing.”
90 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Hegemony Unsustainable
Relatively peaceful multipolarity inevitable by 2025 – shift in power among nations and increased power for nonstate actors. U.S. National Intelligence Council, C. Thomas Fingar, Chairman, U.S. National Intelligence Council, “Global Trends 2025” November 2008 http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf
The international system—as constructed following the Second World War—will be almost unrecognizable by 2025 owing to the rise of emerging powers, a globalizing economy, an historic transfer of relative wealth and economic power from West to East, and the growing influence of nonstate actors. By 2025, the international system will be a global multipolar one with gaps in national power continuing to narrow between developed and developing countries. Concurrent with the shift in power among nation-states, the relative power of various nonstate actors—including businesses, tribes, religious organizations, and criminal networks—is increasing. The players are changing, but so too are the scope and breadth of transnational issues important for continued global prosperity. Aging populations in the developed world; growing energy, food, and water constraints; and worries about climate change will limit and diminish what will still be an historically unprecedented age of prosperity. Historically, emerging multipolar systems have been more unstable than bipolar or unipolar ones. Despite the recent financial volatility—which could end up accelerating many ongoing trends—we do not believe that we are headed toward a complete breakdown of the international system, as occurred in 1914-1918 when an earlier phase of globalization came to a halt. However, the next 20 years of transition to a new system are fraught with risks. Strategic rivalries are most likely to revolve around trade, investments, and technological innovation and acquisition, but we cannot rule out a 19th century-like scenario of arms races, territorial expansion, and military rivalries. This is a story with no clear outcome, as illustrated by a series of vignettes we use to map out divergent futures. Although the United States is likely to remain the single most powerful actor, the United States’ relative strength—even in the military realm—will decline and US leverage will become more constrained. At the same time, the extent to which other actors—both state and nonstate—will be willing or able to shoulder increased burdens is unclear. Policymakers and publics will have to cope with a growing demand for multilateral cooperation when the international system will be stressed by the incomplete transition from the old to a still-forming new order.
91 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Readiness Collapse Inevitable – DADT
DADT makes readiness collapse inevitable. Michelle Garcia July 06, 2009 Veteran Takes the Lead on DADT Bill http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid96041.asp U.S. representative Patrick Murphy, an Iraq War veteran who earned a Bronze Star, has become the lead sponsor of a bill that would lift the ban on openly gay personnel serving in the military, confirming earlier reports. "It is vital to our national security," Murphy, a Pennsylvania Democrat, said to The Morning Call newspaper. "We have troops that are fighting in two wars and we need every qualified able-bodied individual who is able to serve." Ellen Taucher, who is leaving Congress to take a position with the Obama administration, was the leading sponsor of the bill when it was reintroduced to Congress earlier this year. The legislation currently has 150 cosponsors in the House. President Obama and members of his administration have indicated that they are interested in repealing the ban through Congress and not by executive order. Murphy, 35, is a former prosecutor, West Point professor, and captain in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. In a 2008 hearing on "don't ask, don't tell," Murphy went toe-to-toe with Elaine Donnelly, the president of the Center for Military Readiness, which is fighting to keep the ban in place. "You're basically asserting that straight men and women in our military aren't professional enough to serve openly with gay troops while completing their military missions," he said. "You know, as a former Army officer, I can tell you I think that's an insult to me and to many of the soldiers. … 24 countries…allow [gay] military personnel to serve openly without any detrimental impact on unit cohesion." A Gallup poll in May shows that more than two thirds of Americans -- 69% -- favor lifting the ban; 26% remain opposed.
92 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Readiness Collapse Inevitable – DADT
DADT kills readiness and security. Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes Mideast edition, Saturday, July 4, 2009 http://www.stripes.com/article.asp? section=104&article=63577
WASHINGTON — Rep. Patrick Murphy wants to repeal "don’t ask, don’t tell" as soon as possible, with or without the president’s help. "I don’t work for the president," the Pennsylvania Democrat said in an interview with Stars and Stripes. "We don’t need to wait." This week Murphy, a former Army captain who served in Iraq, will take over as lead sponsor of the House bill to repeal the 16-year-old law banning homosexuals from serving openly in the military. His office will unveil a new public push on the issue Wednesday: Face-to-face visits with every member of the House on the issue, a Web site listing facts and myths about the rule, and a goal of passing the legislation this year. The White House last week reiterated its goal of overturning the law, and Obama spoke on the issue at a reception with gay advocacy groups. “I know that every day that passes without a resolution is a deep disappointment to those men and women who continue to be discharged under this policy,” Obama said. “But what I hope is that these cases underscore the urgency of reversing this policy not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it is essential for our national security.” Gay rights advocates point out that Obama still has yet to show real progress on his campaign promise to change the law. Since the start of his presidency 277 troops have been discharged under the law, and about 13,000 have been discharged since 1994. Liberal think tank Center for American Progress released a road map for repeal last month, calling for a simultaneous executive order stopping the law and legislative action in an effort to move the issue ahead. “The longer you wait on this issue, the longer it takes to seize momentum,” said Lawrence Korb, senior fellow at the center. “Congress can take the lead on this. It was Congress over opposition from the military that dropped the ban on women flying combat aircraft and serving on combat ships.” Korb and some advocacy groups have argued that Obama need not wait for Congress, and could simply overturn the law on his own with a wartime executive order allowing gays to serve openly. But both the White House and congressional leaders have stated that changes must come from the legislative branch, and officials from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network have argued that such an order could be vulnerable to legal challenges. Opponents of repealing the “don’t ask” law are girding for a fight. “If they go ahead with this, there are going to be protests, there are going to be lawsuits, and this is going to be taken to court,” said the Rev. Billy Baugham, executive director of the International Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers. Baugham said he believes any change in the “don’t ask” law will face an immediate legal challenge. His group is lobbying lawmakers to leave the law alone, but he said he would not rule out lawsuits to block servicemembers from serving openly. “This is a matter of readiness, and it’s going to break down the relationship between soldiers who are forced into close quarters,” he said. “ ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ is fine at this point, and for that to be destroyed is criminal and outrageous. Murphy is unconcerned about those challenges. He believes Congress can still repeal the law this year, and thinks his experience in the ranks will help convince some reluctant lawmakers to support the change. “People ask why does an Irish-Catholic guy who’s straight and married care so much about [overturning] ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ ” he said. “And I tell them it’s because this is something I believe in. It’s a failed policy that hurts national security. “We all knew people who we served with who were gay, and it didn’t affect their job,” he said. “It didn’t affect me personally. But they were discriminated against, and that shouldn’t be.”
93 Military Recruitment Disad DDW 2009 Analytic Frontline
1. Impact empirically denied – we’ve had recruiting shortfalls in the past and no collapse of hegemony – 2005-6 proves.
2. No brink – losing a few more recruits is not going to collapse American hegemony – economic control and military spending ensure continued American dominance.
3. No link – even if the affirmative attracts a few more recruits, 1NC uniqueness evidence indicates they’re turning people away right now – no 1NC evidence is dependant on quality recruits.
4. No impact – losing a few more troops doesn’t trigger the complete collapse of American power projection Thayar refers to.
5. No long-term uniqueness – economic recovery makes recruiting shortfalls inevitable.
6. Non-unique – social services in the status quo and job creation from things like the stimulus – job growth inevitable.
7. No link – our services only go to people below the poverty line – most of the negative evidence refers to the working poor – our social services wouldn’t apply.
8. 1NC Eaglen evidence is talking about quality of recruits – social services do nothing to take away from the pool of quality recruits.
94