On Thursday, February 20, I gave a guest lecture in the classroom of Ryan Sullivan at the Naval Postgraduate School. This is the third year in a row I’ve given this lecture. It’s titled “How Economists Helped End the Draft,” and the readings for it are David R. Henderson, “The Role of Economists in Ending the Draft,” Econ Journal Watch, August 2005, Christopher Jehn, “Conscription,” The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, and David R. Henderson and Chad W. Seagren, “Time to End Draft Registration,” Defining Ideas, February 10, 2016. Almost all the students were U.S. military officers.
During the discussion, I highlighted the stormy, and illuminating, interaction between Milton Friedman, a prominent critic of the draft, and General William Westmoreland, a prominent proponent of the draft, at some hearings held by the Gates Commission on the All-Volunteer Force, appointed by President Richard Nixon.
I quoted Friedman’s telling of the story in his and Rose Friedman’s autobiography, Two Lucky People:
In the course of his testimony, he made the statement that he did not want to command an army of mercenaries. I stopped him and said, ‘General, would you rather command an army of slaves?’ He drew himself up and said, ‘I don’t like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves.’ I replied, ‘I don’t like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries.’ But I went on to say, ‘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.’ That was the last that we heard from the general about mercenaries.
I drove the point home by saying, “Let me ask you, and I’m asking you to be honest here: Who, when you first thought of joining, looked at what the pay in the military was at the rank you would have?” Almost all of the students raised their hands. “You mercenaries, you,” I said, laughing. That got a few laughs and smiles.
One student who hadn’t raised his hand confessed that when he joined he didn’t know military people were paid. I asked him how old he was when he joined. He said he was 18 and “I just wanted to get out of the s**thole small town I lived in.”
I got his permission to tell his story and use his first name but I’m going to respect his privacy by not using his name and not naming the town.
“So you joined as an enlistee,” I said.
“Yes,” he said.
He got me really curious. By the way, I was very pleased that other students weren’t laughing at him and some of them seemed curious too.
“I’m curious,” I said, “What was your reaction when you got your first paycheck?”
“I was delighted,” he said. “Someone explained to me there wasn’t much in that first check because the price of my uniform had been deducted but that subsequent checks would be much bigger.”
I found it kind of sweet.
He joined in 2002 and is now an officer and so, of course, has been paid for almost 18 years.
I’ve been thinking about it for days and I wonder if he had been misled back in 2002 by hearing that the United States has “an all-volunteer force.” There are, of course, two meanings of volunteer.
READER COMMENTS
Peter
Feb 29 2020 at 5:47am
TBH if you don’t know anybody in the military AND didn’t grow up around a base, the military is a mythical thing and your view of it is about as accurate as any other view you learned off mass media entertainment. Recruiters aren’t incentivized to correct that either not that it would matter in most cases, as your guy said most folks aren’t joining for the paycheck.
I was actually in the military as well and I didn’t learn until many years AFTER I got out draftees were paid. I always assumed they weren’t after all, why would you pay slaves lol.
Phil H
Feb 29 2020 at 9:56am
I think this is one of the best arguments. I share that guy’s feeling about “mercenaries” – as in, there are lots of things in life that I don’t really want to be connected with money. But DH’s point is surely right: OK, you don’t have to connect it with money, but that definitely doesn’t mean that it should be made mandatory or into a legal “right”.
In the particular case of soldiers, presumably one of the worries is that if our soldiers are fighting for money, then the other side can win instantly by simply paying our boys and girls slightly more money. I get how worrying that is, but the draft isn’t a good solution! The other side could win instantly simply by telling army that when they’re in charge, they’ll end the draft.
Jon Murphy
Feb 29 2020 at 7:00pm
To which, of course, the solution is to simply pay more money.
Though it’s unclear that a draft solves the problem. If the transaction costs are already sufficiently low that the enemy could bribe away volunteers, why wouldn’t they be able to bribe away draftees?
MarkW
Mar 2 2020 at 7:12am
In the particular case of soldiers, presumably one of the worries is that if our soldiers are fighting for money, then the other side can win instantly by simply paying our boys and girls slightly more money.
We have a ‘mercenary’ all-volunteer police force. Can criminal enterprises win instantly by offering to pay cops more? In general, the answer is clearly no. Of course police corruption does occur, but it remains the exception rather than the rule. And can you imagine any way in which our polices forces would be improved (or more resistant to corruption) by staffing them with draftees / temporary slaves? I might even go so far as to suggest that any draftee cop might be justified in seeing what the other side has to offer. After all, who’s worse — the drug dealer or the slave master?
Miguel Madeira
Mar 3 2020 at 6:23am
Thinking a bit, it was more or less what happened in Vietnam and specially in the Portuguese Colonial War.
nobody.really
Feb 29 2020 at 12:36pm
True, some would say we have a “volunteer” army, although there are two meanings for “volunteer.” I would say we have an “amateur” army. Of course, “amateur” has two meanings–one being, “someone who acts motivated by love.”
I am not be the only person who would distinguish between those motivated by love and those motivated solely by money. For example:
“I am the good shepherd, and the good shepherd gives up his life for his sheep. Hired workers are not like the shepherd. They don’t own the sheep, and when they see a wolf coming, they run off and leave the sheep. Then the wolf attacks and scatters the flock. Hired workers run away because they don’t care about the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my sheep, and they know me.”
John 10:11-14.
The military seeks to maintain a culture of honor, duty, and commitment; it expects troops to persevere long beyond the point of financial reward, and stigmatizes those who would abandon their post for money. The stigma that accompanies a butcher who leaves one “mercenary” butcher shop for another is much less.
Warren Platts
Feb 29 2020 at 5:33pm
When I joined the Navy, it sure as hell wasn’t for the money….
David Henderson
Feb 29 2020 at 5:59pm
So if it had paid 30% less, you still would have joined?
Julian H. Carnes, Jr.
Mar 2 2020 at 2:19pm
After graduation from The Citadel and while waiting for orders to active duty, I took a job at Lockheed in Atlanta for slightly more than $100 per week. I gladly took my oath of office as a second lieutenant when it came and the monthly salary for that grade was $222.30 per month. So it wasn’t money, ….altruism, perhaps?? I served 20+ years as a combat engineer officer with duty in Vietnam and Korea. Loved the Army and still miss it. I am 86 yo!
Jon Murphy
Mar 3 2020 at 9:16am
If you joined because of altruism, why’d you take a paycheck at all?
Dr. Henderson’s point remains. Your primary motivation for joining may not have been for money, but it certainly played a role. If the pay was $100 a month, would you still have joined? $10?
Jon Murphy
Mar 3 2020 at 9:30am
I think this might be a better way of asking my question to make the point:
What’s the minimum salary threshold you would have needed to accept before you considered other job opportunities?
Warren Platts
Mar 3 2020 at 1:08pm
@David Henderson: To answer your question, yes. I had no idea much I was getting paid. It was 1990 and my bookshelving buddy Imad was trapped behind enemy lines and I was going to go help rescue him. Graduate school did not seem very important. Besides, I figured if you want to be a veteran, a decent war only came about once a generation. Little did I know.
I figured the Navy was the quickest way to get a piece of the action: 8 weeks of basic & 4 weeks of apprenticeship training and you were on a ship. And by golly they sent me: I was in Bahrain by January 17.
Not that I was a war hero. My main job when I wasn’t waxing floors or chipping paint was greasing the cables of the cranes that reloaded the cruise missiles. A dirty job, but someone had to do it.
And my point here is not to complain about the pay all that much. They took care of you. If you didn’t mind living on the ship, your rent was free. The chow wasn’t half bad. Medical. Dental. But if you liked to drink a lot of beer–and what sailor does not?–your monthly salary did not stretch very far. This was probably by design, and probably for the best.
Plus there are benefits once you get out. GI bill wasn’t much, but it helped. You get hiring points for federal jobs, which if you are a white male seeking work in an outfit like the USFWS, that is a BIG help. Probably the best perk is the VA health coverage for life, that I avail myself of to this day, and am very happy with. If you want universal healthcare, you could do a lot worse than VA for all (the one thing I whole-heartedly agree with AOC on).
And it’s true: it’s not just a job; it was an adventure. And how much is that worth? Dolphins, whales, sea snakes, tropical storms, weird bioluminescent phenomena. I learned how to navigate. We invented a drink called the Manama Mama. I even almost got killed that time the 500-pound Raymond releasing hook came crashing down, missing my head by inches, cables snaking around my feet! What more could you want!
After the war, by ’92 both me and Imad made it back to Colorado State. We met for coffee to compare notes (as an observant Muslim, Imad didn’t drink beer). It turned out he wasn’t even a real Kuwaiti. He was a Palestinian! So his whole family got deported back to Jordan after the Iraqis were kicked out! The best laid plans of mice and men…
Bottom line is the money was crap, but the experience was worth it. What is it like now? I’m not sure but my daughter has been in the Navy for a year now and just bought a house in Hampton, Virginia, so she must not be doing too bad…
David Henderson
Mar 4 2020 at 4:04pm
Thanks, Warren. Good stories.
Jon Murphy
Feb 29 2020 at 7:52pm
There is a way to read Westmoreland’s comment in a manner favorable to his indignation, namely through the lens of ancient liberty.
Ancient philosophers, like Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, etc., all looked at merchants as suspicious. They could undermine the body politic. For these ancient philosophers, “liberty” meant the right to participate in the polis (mainly the city-state, though Cicero uses the word “commonwealth”). The individual was not the fundamental unit; the polis was. Mercenaries, since they could move between city-states and have competing loyalties to something/someone other than the polis, could undermine the liberty of citizens.
Given ancient liberty, the idea of a draft doesn’t in and of itself violate liberty the way it does for us liberals. Since a person is part of the polis, that liberty entails certain obligations in service to the polis, which can include defending it (other examples include taking office if called upon, serving in the assembly, jury duty, etc).
Through this lens, Friedman’s classification of the “mercenary soldier” and ending the draft posed a threat to the liberty of Westmoreland.
I have no idea if Westmoreland studied the ancients. I’m just providing what I think is an interesting interpretation of his statement and behavior.
Phil
Mar 2 2020 at 1:06pm
I have never been comfortable with the term “all volunteer” military. Unlike other employment contracts, one cannot un-volunteer without the same risk of imprisonment as a draftee. Only at limited opportunities (e.g., end of an enlistment contract) may one exit. Voluntariness exists only at the moment of induction; everything else is the same. “Undrafted” is more accurate.
Jon Murphy
Mar 2 2020 at 2:11pm
I don’t see how the terms of the contract make it any less voluntary. Simply because there is an outcome you may not consent to doesn’t imply the game itself is non-consensual.
David Seltzer
Mar 2 2020 at 5:55pm
Fair comment Phil, but I disagree. I enlisted in the Navy the day I was eighteen. I was fully informed as to the terms of the contract which spelled out the specific time I would serve and when my discharge date was. I would remain a ready reservist for two years post my four year enlistment. Upon discharge, as part of consideration in contract law, I was eligible for the GI Bill which paid for much of my college. I was fully apprised of the contract’s terms before I enlisted. I enlisted during the Vietnam era with the express understanding that it was possible I would not return home.
Warren Platts
Mar 3 2020 at 11:57am
lol! Back in the day, if you wanted out, all you had to do was tell your CO that you were gay. That trick doesn’t work anymore!
Patrick T Peterson
Mar 2 2020 at 2:20pm
“He said he was 18 and “I just wanted to get out of the s**thole small town I lived in.”” Love it.
Comments are closed.