Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 21, 1969)
n. .................. Analysis: volunteer army pan II No danger in Hatfield army bill uu.iui a Iiyie. me ionowing article is the second of a two part series on the Volunteer \rinv hill S anWsis appearedin T-horsday's Emerald, and outlined an swers to two objections to the bill. Today’s conclu sion offers answers to two objections. more potential OBJECTION No. 3: “A volunteer army might be dangerous in that it would tie the President’s hands Realistically, how could we expect to meet emer gencies?” My answer: it's dangerous not to tie the President’s hands. The need for greater Congressional influence in foreign policy decisions has already been stressed, so it is unnecessary to report those arguments. But rather, we see that this objection really wants to know if the military security of the United States would be endangered. I rather doubt it. In the post-Vietnam period of 1970-1975, the De partment of Defense estimates that we need 2.6 or 2.7 million men in uniform. Professor Oi says, “The one time when a volunteer system was tried, in 1948 1949, the number of volunteers was sufficient to sus tain a force of 1.5 million men—an outcome which is cited as failure of the system. However, the popula tion base from which these men were recruited was only half the size of that which will be available in 1970-1975.” (“Op. Cit.”) In any given year now, the number of men turning 18 is two million compared to 1.2 million in 1948. So it appears feasible just from the numbers alone. Nevertheless, Senator Hatfield’s bill provides for substantial pay increases in line with the $4 billion annual raise advocated by Professor Oi. This repre sents a 68 per cent raise for army enlistments, from S2500 to S4200 per year. It is meant to insure that the armed services are attractive enough to join (as well as to provide fairer compensation for labor). Question: "But wouldn't troop strengths tend to fluctuate at least initially and wouldn't this put us in a vulnerable military position?” My answer: Undoubtedly troop strengths would fluctuate initially. A steady state volunteer a r m y would take a few years to achieve, but this would not endanger us. There are 1.3 million men in Reserve and National Guard units. The President could reactivate them at will to meet short-term demands for personnel. But he would have to consult the Congress on ques tions of the draft and protracted states of war. (Lest anyone still thinks this restricts the President too much, you would do well to recall that he still retains the power to destroy every man, woman and child on Earth in 30 minutes.) Rely on reserves Incidentally, the status of reserves has been con troversial in many quarters. By and large they have been spared from duty in Vietnam. Washington State Congressman Floyd Hicks sought to amend the draft bill in 1967 so as to limit the number of draftees and rely more heavily on the reserves: “Mr. Chairman, this amendment means just exactly what it says, that we would use some of our reserve forces so that the country will know the condition we are actually in, instead of pulling young kids in and putting in four months and sending them to Vietnam where a goodly number of them are being killed within a very -few months, and then we have to respond to letters, ‘Why is it that my hoy was drafted in May and killed in October and the Reserve people are still walking around town?’ We spend a lot of time in our Com mittee on Armed Services on the reserves. This Con gress appropriates a lot of money for them. We do not use them. We should use them.” (Congressional Record, 25 May 1967.) The amendment was defeated. We can afford it OBJECTION No. 4: “Well, a volunteer army would be too expensive. We can't afford it.” My answer: The $3.7 billion pay raise provided by the Hatfield bill could be increased substantially and we still could afford it. The Pentagon wastes at least that much every year. The estimated Federal budget for the coming year is S198 billion. 1 find it difficult to believe we cannot afford it. More over, a volunteer army will yield numerous savings. A volunteer serves longer and has a higher probability of re-enlisting. There is less turnover. Training costs go down. There are fewer Veterans, and hence, fewer Veterans benefits to be paid, etc., etc., ad infinitum. In conclusion. I would urge the speedy enactment of Senator Hatfield’s bill or one like it. it is folly to defend freedom abroad and deny it at home. In the interest of passing the best possible legislation, I in vite comments on this article. iiiilllHliliiilliiliiiiiiiliiur iiiiiiitiiuiilllltllillliuniltiuillllllll Mlltiii1lllltlMl