On Military Bonuses versus Conscription
Since no one wants to hear about how conscription constitutes “involuntary servitude” as is therefore — duh — unconstitutional, the other argument I often make is the more mundane “mercenary” case against against conscription, which goes something like this: Offer entry-level privates $200,000 per year and entry-level lieutenants $400,000 per year, and you won’t need a draft — especially if the war you are trying to fight is just. Willing volunteers would line up for miles. And qualified recruits to boot — no grandmothers, felons or idiots required.
Perfect example:
The Army may begin paying a retention bonus of as much as $150,000 to Arabic speaking soldiers in reflection of how critical it has become for the US military to retain native language and cultural know-how in its ranks.
Only one other job in the Army, Special Forces, rates such a super-sized retention bonus. Now, as the military makes a fundamental shift toward rewarding the linguistic expertise it needs the most, it is expanding a program to train and retain native Arabic and other speakers from the same regions in which it is fighting.
Putting aside the precedent question of the propriety of the Iraq War itself, this is entirely as it should be. If the military needs Arabic speakers, then let the military pay for them.
And more generally, if the military needs soldiers in any capacity, then let the military pay for them.
It really can and should be that simple. Especially for a relatively small (and allegedly “just”) conflict.
(Via Crossed Pond.)
—
Some related questions:
–If conscription is not an immoral abomination, then why not draft — not bribe with higher salary and benefits, but flat-out draft — police officers, firefighters, paramedics, teachers and other key defenders of security, safety and the “public welfare”? Why is the military supposedly different, especially during peacetime or when the conflict is small and on the other side of the world?
–Why does no one ever talk about “drafting” businesses? When the government needs a tank, it buys one. When the government needs uniforms, it buys them. But the government doesn’t “draft” General Motors or Eddie Bauer. The one and only time that a president tried to “draft an industry” (during time of war, no less), the Supreme Court said it was an abomination. But drafting people isn’t? That simply cannot be right. Note: In a post-Kelo world, the government could no doubt seize factories and textile mills under eminent domain, insisting that waging war is a “public use” under the Fifth Amendment. But eminent domain is a permanent seizure of property; we simply don’t see temporary conscription (for the duration of the crisis, etc.) of any resource — except our own citizenry. How does that make sense?
Filed under: Constitutional Issues, Libertarianism
One quick comment about the retention bonuses: as the article points out, they are tax free if the reenlistment papers are signed in certain designated areas (read: anywhere in the Middle East).
When I was in the navy, we used to call that the icing on the cake. We had a lot of reenlistment ceremonies in the Persian Gulf. For guys who are waffling about whether to stay in, that bonus is powerful.
I think one reason why the military initiates drafts is that most people in are selfish (and rightfully so) but we have a military that is used to defend everyone. It is the 'tragedy of the commons' and why communism fails. No one wants to contribute but all want to consume.