more dangerous. Some seemed to
lower rates than do volunteers. Increased
think that, if they were in uniform
turnover would hike total costs: the
when US troops were deployed, they
Pentagon would have to train larger numbers
would inevitably be deployed and,
of conscripts and offer more generous reen-
consequently, be put in harm's way.
listment pay and bonuses to build and retain
Some suggested that recent military
a career force. In addition to that would be
ventures were motivated by the inter-
the costs of classification, induction, and
ests of national leaders--Congress or
enforcement. Such a national conscription
the President--but were not in the
apparatus would have to be even more exten-
national interest. They objected to
sive and draconian today when the case for
being put in jeopardy to fight some-
the draft--and thus the social consensus
one else's battles.90
behind it--would be so weak.
In 1982 the Reagan administration's
Parents share that concern. Indeed, they
Military Manpower Task Force concluded
"generally were not supportive of this evolv-
that a return to the draft would actually hike
ing role for the United States military."91
budget costs by about $1 billion annually:
However, neither sons nor parents ques-
"The anticipated cost savings," stated the
A return to
commission, "would probably be illusory."93
tioned "the need for military service in either
conscription
defense of our own country or in domestic
Similar estimates of increased costs from
assistance, e.g., hurricane relief."92
other studies during the mid-1980s ran from
would yield a
$1 billion to $1.5 billion.94 A report by the
The reluctance of potential recruits, their
less-experienced,
parents, and current service people to sup-
consulting group Syllogistics, Inc., conclud-
less-stable, and
port today's interventionist policies indicates
ed that "as a method of personnel procure-
that those policies don't make sense or have
ment, an active force draft could be quite
less-efficient mil-
costly compared to today's AVF."95
been inadequately explained, or both.
itary.
Policymakers should deal with the policies
Conscription would also make the mili-
that are causing the problem instead of rein-
tary less efficient because the services
stituting the draft. Conscription would elim-
would make less effort to use productively
inate the need to justify dubious deploy-
their most valuable resource: manpower.
ments, not make them more justifiable.
Before becoming navy secretary, Richard
Danzig observed that "when it receives peo-
ple at no cost, the military, like most insti-
The Mirage of Cost Savings
tutions when this happens, tends to treat
them as if they were virtually of no
worth."96 Thus, the advent of the AVF
Coercion is not cheaper than voluntarism.
Some savings in recruiting costs might be
caused manpower analyst Kenneth Coffey
achieved, but even radical pay cuts would
to propose more carefully calibrated mobi-
save little because first termers earn the least.
lization and deployment policies to meet
the threat of a Warsaw Pact invasion.97
And the obvious unfairness of dramatically
reducing benefits for the unfortunate few
The existence of a draft also affects bat-
singled out for conscription would likely dis-
tlefield tactics. The availability of essential-
courage Congress from slashing draftees'
ly endless supplies of manpower allowed
pay, limiting any potential savings.
the North in the Civil War and most of the
Moreover, any savings would be offset by
countries participating in World War I to
increased costs elsewhere. For example, con-
undertake those bloody wars of attrition. In
scripts tend to serve shorter terms (volun-
the latter conflict, British prime minister
teers can be asked to serve four or more years
David Lloyd George raged, "The generals
compared with the typical draft term of two
could not be expected to judge the issue
years) and, as noted earlier, reenlist at far
dispassionately. Their reckless wastage of
9