Don’t undermine the average soldier
Kia Makarechi’s “Uncle Sam wants high school dropouts” (Jan. 28) explained the view that the Army’s recruitment of high school dropouts was an unethical decision because of the opinion that eligible recruits from more affluent socioeconomic backgrounds were not enlisting due to lack of support for the war and thus it was unfair to recruit those who may have no other choice but to enlist.
However, I must contest the decision to recruit high school dropouts on different grounds, which I feel are more important to the current climate of war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, where our military is increasingly relying on successful small unit interaction with locals to be successful ““ notably the fear that recruiting high school dropouts will lower the professionalism and effectiveness of the Army.
Evidence that admitting recruits who do not meet academic standards lowers the capability of the military exists in the form of Project 100,000, a Vietnam-era project started by Robert McNamara that recruited approximately 300,000 recruits who would have normally been rejected in the hope that they could be “salvaged” and used by the Army and that by doing so they would lead a more productive civilian life. However, according to a Feb. 17, 2006, New York Times Op-Ed piece by Kelly Greenhill of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, “a Project 100,000 recruit who entered the Marine Corps in 1968 was two and a half times more likely to die in combat that his higher-aptitude compatriots,” a fact that demonstrates such recruits were poorer troops in 1968 and are presumably still poorer troops 40 years later in 2008.
While it may or may not be correct to oppose the decision to recruit high school dropouts on moral grounds, the intellectual grounds are much more convincing. Our military is increasingly relying on successful small unit interaction with locals to be successful in areas such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. The importance of the intelligence of the average soldier cannot be understated.
Stephen Tye
Second-year
Want fair recruiting? Reinstate the draft
The answer to Kia Makarechi’s grievance (“Uncle Sam wants high school dropouts,” Jan. 28) with the Army’s recruiting tactics is simple, really: reinstate the draft. Conscription precludes any chance of higher-income, more educated Americans skipping out on serving their country.
I, for one, would not like to see students dragged away from their studies and their families to fight in an unpopular war. But at least the class representation in the ranks would be equitable. The fact is that, when given a choice, more affluent young men and women choose not to enlist.
At least the Army provides an opportunity for dropout enlistees: Instead of doing harsh work for lesser pay, Army service provides recruits a shot at making a decent career inside or outside of the armed forces with the skills and experience they gain.
Additionally, the Army is not “desperate for recruits” as the author claims. Though the figures have fluctuated over time, every branch of the armed forces tends to meet or exceed its recruitment goals.
Last year was the bloodiest year yet in Iraq, but the Army brought in 105 percent of its goal for active service in December, and the National Guard brought in 120 percent of its goal in the same month.
Though it is a concern that many Americans from low-income families are enlisting, this was one of the risks America took when it eliminated the draft in 1973. We are better off with an all-volunteer force, but we must deal with the social implications of seeking voluntary rather than involuntary enlistees.
Thomas Kinzinger
First-year, political science