Friday, June 03, 2005
The Army of the Future
The U.S. military's recent recruitment problem is of great concern to us here at Andromeda. The news today that the Army is changing its rules about kicking out drug addicts and the obese represents a good first step as part of an over-all strategy to responsibly address the problem. The unhealthy, the unfit, the drug-addicted, the drunk, the refractory and the criminal will hopefully supply the shortage left as the gay are identified and court-martialed. Ultimately, however, it strikes us that the problem is similar in many ways to the budget problem, and calls for a similar Bush-style solution.
With the budget, the problem was that more and more money needed to be spent to pay for Bush's global ambitions, and yet Bush was unwilling to accept a tax hike to pay those costs. With military recruitment, the problem is that more and more lives need to be spent to pay for Bush's global ambitions, and yet Bush is unwilling to accept a draft to keep those lives in good supply. For the budget, the solution was brilliant. Simply ignore reality. It did not matter that we were spending more than we were taking in. And so the budget problem went away.
A similar solution to the recruitment problem is obvious. Deficit soldiers. Just as foreign countries have financed our deficit spending, we will promise countries like China and Japan soldiers in the future in exchange for their soldiers now. To help them decide to lend us soldiers now, they could come by nurseries and playlots and Michael Jackson's house to look over the crop of future soldiers they would have to choose from.
"Aha!" you say, "There is a flaw in that approach! What if in the future there were a war with a 'creditor' country and the U.S. owed that country so many soldiers it could not supply its own side?" To that, we say, "You are so foolish we will not deign to answer your foolish question, and you smell." But then you say, "Please!" and we say, "OK, this time we will, but don't be so foolish from now on with the foolish questions that you have all the time, smelly." The answer is simple: the U.S. would supply its soldiers to form the enemy's army, which would mean the enemy would have spare soldiers the U.S. could borrow (in exchange for future U.S. soldiers) to fight for the U.S. side.
With the budget, the problem was that more and more money needed to be spent to pay for Bush's global ambitions, and yet Bush was unwilling to accept a tax hike to pay those costs. With military recruitment, the problem is that more and more lives need to be spent to pay for Bush's global ambitions, and yet Bush is unwilling to accept a draft to keep those lives in good supply. For the budget, the solution was brilliant. Simply ignore reality. It did not matter that we were spending more than we were taking in. And so the budget problem went away.
A similar solution to the recruitment problem is obvious. Deficit soldiers. Just as foreign countries have financed our deficit spending, we will promise countries like China and Japan soldiers in the future in exchange for their soldiers now. To help them decide to lend us soldiers now, they could come by nurseries and playlots and Michael Jackson's house to look over the crop of future soldiers they would have to choose from.
"Aha!" you say, "There is a flaw in that approach! What if in the future there were a war with a 'creditor' country and the U.S. owed that country so many soldiers it could not supply its own side?" To that, we say, "You are so foolish we will not deign to answer your foolish question, and you smell." But then you say, "Please!" and we say, "OK, this time we will, but don't be so foolish from now on with the foolish questions that you have all the time, smelly." The answer is simple: the U.S. would supply its soldiers to form the enemy's army, which would mean the enemy would have spare soldiers the U.S. could borrow (in exchange for future U.S. soldiers) to fight for the U.S. side.
