Feral Jundi

In his recent coauthored book, Two Lucky People, Mr. Friedman writes that 5 of the 15 commissioners — including himself, Mr. Greenspan, and Mr. Wallis — were against the draft to begin with. Five members were undecided, and 5 were prodraft. Yet when the commission’s report came out less than a year later and became a paperback book, all 15 members favored ending the draft. What happened in between? That’s where Bill Meckling comes in.

This is cool because thanks to the work and ideas of these men, they were able to radically change the way the US was doing business. They ended the idea of a ‘slave army’ or compulsory draft.

Of course there were a lot of things in alignment in order to make that happen back then, namely the Vietnam war, but as you can see with the interview and the story below, it still took some convincing to get folks to change their mind.

I also think it is interesting that the generals of the day, tried to use the ‘mercenary’ concept in the derogatory.  That General Westmoreland did not want to command an ‘army of mercenaries’. lol Wow, he went there.

But what is equally interesting is how Milton Friedman shut down and tore apart the General’s argument in a rather Boydian kind of way.  (it would have been cool to see Boyd and Friedman debate?)

In his testimony before the commission, Mr. Westmoreland said he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. Mr. Friedman interrupted, “General, would you rather command an army of slaves?” Mr. Westmoreland replied, “I don’t like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves.” Mr. Friedman then retorted, “I don’t like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries. If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general; we are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher.“

The other reason why I bring this up, is because I believe this is a crucial part of US warfighting history as to why this industry is so strong and relevant in today’s wars. The ending of the draft, along with a society demanding a peace dividend at the end of wars, are two factors which really drive the necessity of contingency contracting. Meaning, a society that does not have the draft, must have a means of raising an army quickly by other means in order to meet the demands of a war or wars.

At the end of the Cold War and the First Gulf War, we saw large cut backs in the US military. This was the peace dividend that society demanded, and politicians gave them. But what happens when that peace is shattered and a reduced military must be activated?  Well everyone knows the story of 9/11 and the last ten years of war that has been fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, and around the world. The requirement for manpower, and the ability to sustain sufficient levels of manpower under an All Volunteer Military regime has been tested. And in my view, the AVM was a success, but with a caveat.

The AVM did have problems raising sufficient manpower during the tough periods of this war. The peek of the Iraq war comes to mind. I mean the military was using stop loss and recalling soldiers in order to get enough bodies out in the field. The news and political debates really showed the violence of that war, and it was a hard sell to a young person to want to be a part of that. In that kind of environment, along with having a ‘military we went to war with, and not the one we wished we had’, we had problems. So how did we make up the difference for manpower? Enter contractors….

You see, contractors are a necessary industry to have, if a Democracy like ours wants to wage war using the AVM concept. And the numbers speak for themselves (please see all of the prior publications on the blog that listed those numbers). What is more important is that private industry did answer the call, and did it ‘willingly’. Contingency contractors did everything from cooking to cleaning, to building and fixing, to training and mentoring, to PSD/Convoy/Static security.  And this industry that answered the call, had ‘legions’ of willing participants from all over the world lining up to join the effort. Especially during the peek of the Iraq war.  They did it for pay, much like a soldier in the All Volunteer Military gets paid, and they did it for patriotic or idealistic reasons, much like a soldier in an AVM.

I only see this industry becoming more relevant and legitimate as time goes by. I think Milton Friedman would be pretty impressed by how private industry reacted to this need for contingency contracting/manpower in today’s wars. Private industry also reacted in the same way to the equipping and arming of war machines of wars past. What private industry did during WW 2 was beyond belief, and all of those companies that re-tooled and focused for that effort helped the allies win. Private industry is quite the thing when it has direction and incentive.

I also think that the concept called the All Volunteer Military is a misnomer. There is nothing volunteer about it. lol I mean when I hear the term volunteer, I think of it’s definition–‘a person who performs a service willingly and without pay’. Today’s military service requires a contract, and the soldier get’s paid and they receive benefits. So I just have a problem when people say that the military is a ‘volunteer’ force. It may not be a ‘slave army’, but it certainly is not an army of volunteers.

I guess under that logic, I am a volunteer as well? Matter of fact, contractors should be tied in directly within the concept of an All Volunteer Military. It’s just we volunteer for a privately run service, and not a publicly run service. But both groups of force, do so out of free will and because of the pay and benefits. So what differentiates both of us?

Well, one way to look at this is to apply my Offense and Defense Industry models to what is going on right now. The military has the monopoly on all Offense Industry.  Meaning they are the ones that profit from killing or capturing the enemy. By profit, meaning if they are successful in winning wars and destroying the enemy, then congress blesses the military with more funding. They also get the glory and praise for victory. Those leaders responsible for doing well, also profit by getting promotions and taking those successes with them further on in their careers or life. Winning wars, certainly ups the value of the victors responsible for that.

For Defense Industry, the military does not hold a monopoly. And that is significant. It is private industry that competes with the military when it comes to the defense, in war zones. Everything from cyber security, to standing posts, to training, to PSD, to static security, to convoy operations. Private industry is certainly competing with the military, and they have market share. And like I mentioned up top, the numbers speak for themselves. This blog also lists numerous examples of how private industry operates and flourishes in today’s Defense Industry realm.

I also think the example of Fedex/UPS versus the Postal Service, is a good one to look at when looking at today’s Defense Industry. Both the public and private organizations share the same space, much like how military and contingency contractors share the same space called Defense Industry. But it is in that space, where folks on both sides will fight it out as to how much market share they will get.

It is also funny that there are literally no ‘contractor think tanks’ to promote private industry in war. Nothing. There are blogs like mine, and a few trade associations that promote private industry, but that is it. Not to mention lobbyists, but that goes without saying. Now compare that to what the military has in order to promote what they do? From think tanks to academies to war colleges to numerous military leaders working side by side with politicians–the military is in a far better position to exert influence. Hell, congress gives them money to promote what they do. lol

And yet, with all of that in place….contractors still exist on the battlefield after ten plus years of war. I mean when was the last time you saw a Dyncorp recruitment commercial during the Super Bowl? How about a college or university paid for by private military companies, all with the idea of producing tommorrow’s private military leaders? How about a Letter of Marque Institute, purely dedicated to the promotion of that legal instrument of war?

Yet our industry flourishes, self organizes, learns, continuously improves and competes with others to make a better product or service. It’s either that, or we fail and get left in the dust by our competitors. I am also thankful that this country does not have the draft, and that only in extreme situations would they ever fire up the selective service or draft–to probably save the country. But for today’s wars, an All Volunteer Military (and Contractor Force) works for me. –Matt

Thank You, William H. Meckling
We owe a debt of gratitude to the man who killed the draft.
January 1999
By David Henderson
If you are an American male under age 44, take a moment of silence to thank William H. Meckling, who died last year at age 76. Even though you probably haven’t heard of him, he has had a profound effect on your life. What he did was help to end military conscription in the United States.
Between 1948 and 1973, here’s what you knew if you were a healthy male born in the U.S.A.: the government could pluck you out of almost any activity you were pursuing, cut your hair, and send you anywhere in the world. If the United States was at war, you might have to kill people, and you might return home in a body bag.

COLD DRAFT

Bill Meckling didn’t think that was right, and not just because the Vietnam War was so reckless. He had been drafted into the army in World War II and witnessed the government’s incredibly wasteful use of manpower when it could pay below-market wages. He tucked that lesson away and would use it 25 years later. ?Meckling went on to become an economist. In 1962 he was named the first dean of the University of Rochester’s new business school, where he continued until 1983. ?Meanwhile, a 31-year-old economist named Martin Anderson joined Richard Nixon’s campaign for president in 1967. One of Mr. Anderson’s main goals was to persuade Nixon to end the draft, and he wrote the antidraft campaign speech that Nixon gave in 1968. Mr. Anderson then worked, as one of the new president’s advisers, to end the draft.

(more…)