Neg Armed Forces 22

Whitman College 7/19/06

1 Armed Forces Neg

Armed Forces Neg Inherency Answers Armed Forces Neg..........................................................................................................................................................1 Inherency Answers – Short-Term Enlistment Now........................................................................................................2 Harms Answers – Readiness...........................................................................................................................................3 Harms Answers – Recruitment.......................................................................................................................................4 Harms Answers – Recruitment.......................................................................................................................................5 Harms Answers – Recruitment.......................................................................................................................................6 Harms Answers – Reserve System..................................................................................................................................7 Harms Answers – Low Quality Soldiers.........................................................................................................................8 Solvency Answers – Practical Limits to Recruitment.....................................................................................................9 Solvency Answers – Iraq Prevents Recruitment...........................................................................................................10 Solvency Answers – Iraq Prevents Recruitment...........................................................................................................11 Solvency Answers – Financial Aid Prevents Recruitment............................................................................................12 Solvency Answers – Across-the-Board Raise Prevent Retention.................................................................................13 Solvency Answers – Only Draft Solves........................................................................................................................14 Solvency Answers – Service Approach Fails................................................................................................................15 Solvency Answers – Too Short for Training.................................................................................................................16 Solvency Answers – Plan Hurts Morale.......................................................................................................................17 Solvency Answers – Plan Hurts Readiness...................................................................................................................18 Solvency Answers – Moskos Doesn’t Support Plan.....................................................................................................19 Incentives CP – Solvency..............................................................................................................................................20 Financial Aid CP – Solvency........................................................................................................................................21 RMA DA – Links..........................................................................................................................................................22

Whitman College 7/19/06

2 Armed Forces Neg

Inherency Answers – Short-Term Enlistment Now The status quo creates the option of short-term recruits without incurring the negative side effects Gil Klein, National Correspondent, Media General News, 2/9/2003 (“Uncle Sam Wants You! And Or Your Children For 18 Months” – Information Clearing House) accessed 7/9/2006, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1186.htm The legislation did not set a floor or ceiling for how many should be recruited, Clark said. At first, a few thousand will be brought into an active military of 1.4 million troops. ``We are going to track and monitor the performance of the new recruits and constantly be balancing it to see what their impact is,'' Clark said. ``But these will be real service members, not second-class.''

Short-term enlistment options exist now Marc Magee, Director of the Center for Civic Enterprise, Progressive Policy Institute, and Steven J. Nider, Director of Foreign and Security Studies, Progressive Policy Institute, December 2002 (“Citizen Soldiers and the War on Terror” – Progressive Policy Institute) accessed 7/9/2006, http://www.ppionline.org/documents/Citizen_Soldier_1202.pdf In a breakthrough that marries national service and national defense, President Bush recently signed into law a new, short-term enlistment option for America’s Armed Forces. It would enable volunteers to sign up for 18 months of service on active duty—the average enlistment now is four years—followed by service in the Reserves and then either a period of availability in the Individual Ready Reserves or civilian service in AmeriCorps or the Peace Corps. The provision, contained in this year’s defense authorization bill, represents a triumph for Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), who proposed such a “citizen soldier” option in legislation last year aimed at enlarging national service.

More evidence… David Moniz, Award-Winning Pentagon Reporter, USA Today, and Co-Founder, Military Reporters and Editors, 5/13/2005 (“Army Offers 15-month Hitch” – USA Today) accessed 7/9/2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-13-army-short-tour_x.htm?csp=34 The Army, faced with a severe and growing shortage of recruits, began offering 15-month active-duty enlistments nationwide Thursday, the shortest tours ever. The typical enlistment lasts three or four years; the previous shortest enlistment was two years. Maj. Gen. Michael Rochelle, the head of the Army Recruiting Command, said 2006 could be even worse than this year, a continuation of "the toughest recruiting climate ever faced by the all-volunteer Army." Recruits in the new 15-month program could serve in 59 of the more than 150 jobs in the Army, including the combat infantry, and then serve two years in the Reserve or National Guard. They would finish their eight-year military obligation in the Guard or Reserve, volunteer programs such as AmeriCorps or the Peace Corps, or the Individual Ready Reserve, a pool of former active-duty troops who can still be called to duty but aren't affiliated with any military unit.

Whitman College 7/19/06

3 Armed Forces Neg

Harms Answers – Readiness The military isn’t close to breaking. Reports are false. CNN 1/25/2006 (“Rumsfeld Disputes Readiness Study”) accessed 7/9/2006, http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/25/military.studies/ Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday disputed a Pentagon-commissioned study that warns the Army needs more troops for Iraq and Afghanistan, telling reporters the service is nowhere close to its breaking point. The study by Andrew Krepinevich, a military analyst and former Army officer, found that the Army's manpower needs for those conflicts "clearly exceed those available for the mission." "The forces called for proved insufficient to execute effectively stability operations of the type envisioned by the U.S. military," the study said. "A clear sign of this was the willingness of the U.S. command in Iraq to cede responsibilities for stability operations in several key cities to forces hostile to the interim government." Rumsfeld said he has not read the study but took issue with its conclusions. "There isn't any reason in the world why we shouldn't be able to maintain -- with an active and reserve total-force concept of 2 million people -- why we shouldn't be able to maintain 138,000, even though I don't expect we will maintain 138,000 in Iraq," he said. (U.S. troop levels) The 136-page study warns that the strain on what it called the Army's "thin green line" -- not the improvement of Iraqi and Afghan forces -- are driving plans to withdraw some troops in 2006. Rumsfeld called that "just false." He also criticized a report issued Wednesday by congressional Democrats that accused the Bush administration of straining the military by failing to send enough troops to occupy Iraq and inadequately equipping those that have been sent. Those conditions could have "highly corrosive and potentially long-term effects on the military," said William Perry, who served as defense secretary under President Clinton. But Rumsfeld said the U.S. military is now "battle-hardened," and the Democratic criticisms "are either out of date or just misdirected." "I just can't imagine someone looking at the United States armed forces today and suggesting that they're close to breaking," he said. "That's just not the case."

Whitman College 7/19/06

4 Armed Forces Neg

Harms Answers – Recruitment Recruitment and quality are up. The military is not broken. Tom Bowman, Reporter, Baltimore Sun, 2/14/2006 (“Army Accepts Crime in Recruits” – Baltimore Sun) accessed 7/9/2006, http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking06/Recruits.html Army Lt. Gen. Theodore G. Stroup Jr., who was chief of Army personnel during the 1991 gulf war, said it's too early to say what effect the increased waivers will have on the Army. Historically, recruits who have high-school diplomas and are drug-free and crime-free are far more likely to make it through Army training and their three-year or four-year enlistment period, while those lacking these personal attributes are more likely to wash out. Senior Army leaders continue to dispute criticism from McCaffrey and others, saying that the Army is performing well in both Iraq and Afghanistan, that recruitment is on the upswing and that the soldiers fielded today are the best trained and equipped ever. "Most of you might remember the armed forces post-Vietnam, where we had major problems in discipline, major problems in readiness, major problems across the board," Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's top officer, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. "The United States Army is not broken."

Re-enlistment and unit morale is extremely high and recruitment is turning the corner Drew Brown, Writer, Knight Ridder Newspapers, 1/18/2006 (“Army Re-enlistment Figures Up, But Recruitment Lags” – Knight Ridder Newspapers) accessed 7/19/2006, http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=10089 Re-enlistments for the Army in fiscal 2005 were the highest they've been in five years, nearly enough to make up for a shortfall of about 7,000 new recruits last year, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey said Wednesday. More than 69,500 soldiers re-enlisted in the 12 months ending in September, Harvey said. But last year also was the Army's worst for recruiting since 1999, the last time it failed to meet its annual goal. A study produced for the service in 2004 indicated that a high chance of being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan was keeping many young people away who might have signed up. Harvey said he believed new recruiting and referral bonuses and other perks will help. "We've now made our recruiting objectives for the last seven months, and the future looks promising," he said. New measures signed into law earlier this month include a $40,000 enlistment bonus, a $1,000 referral fee for soldiers who encourage new recruits to join, and down payment assistance for soldiers who are first-time home buyers. The Army has already recruited 25 percent more new troops this year than at the same point in fiscal 2005, Harvey said. The recruiting shortfall in 2005 is one of several factors that have caused some analysts and retired military officials to worry that the Army may again be "broken," a reference to the late 1970s post-Vietnam era when the service experienced an exodus of seasoned enlisted men and officers and was chronically short of recruits and new equipment. The critics worry that the Army may be about to repeat that experience partly because of the strains produced by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Harvey said re-enlistment by troops in Iraq "was the best measure" of the Army's health. For example, he said, the 3rd Infantry Division, now in Iraq, recently exceeded its reenlistment goal by 36 percent. "Morale is high. The soldiers in theater know they're making a difference, and the soldiers in theater are proud to be part of this effort," he said. David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization, said many young soldiers joined the Army after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and many re-enlist because "they want to stay until the job is done." Another reason to reenlist, Segal said, is the bonus, which is tax-free for troops in the war zone.

Whitman College 7/19/06

5 Armed Forces Neg

Harms Answers – Recruitment Numerous new incentives and programs ensure that recruitment and re-enlistment will remain strong Donna Miles, Writer, American Forces Press Service, 5/10/2006 (“Army Optimistic Current Recruiting Trend Will Continue” – Defense Link) accessed 7/19/2006, http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2006/20060510_5087.html The largest of the services, the Army is also the most heavily deployed, and with its one-year "boots-on-theground" deployment policy, it keeps its members away from home for the longest duration. Yet so far this year, more than 160,000 people have enlisted or re-enlisted in the Army - the equivalent to every man, woman and child in Chattanooga, Tenn., noted Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, Army personnel spokesman. April proved to be another strong month, with almost 5,700 soldiers joining the active Army and almost 5,900 joining the Army National Guard, he noted. The Army Reserve trailed behind, recruiting almost 2,200 soldiers in April, short of its goal of just over 2,600. Maj. Gen. Sean Byrne, the Army's director of Military Personnel Management, expressed optimism about the months ahead. "I feel very comfortable going into the summer that we are going to meet our recruiting mission," he said. "We are better positioned than last year," he said, noting that the Army is recruiting more members than for the same period in fiscal 2005. And most of those who join the Army decide to stay, as evidenced by re-enlistment numbers that hit more than 80,000 during the first seven months of fiscal year 2006, Hilferty said. "Two out of three soldiers eligible to re-enlist continue to re-enlist," he said. The vast majority of re-enlistments were in the active Army, with almost 50,000 active-duty soldiers re-upping since Oct. 1. That's more than 8,000 higher than what the Army was working toward, and a big step toward the Army's year-end goal of just over 64,000, Hilferty noted. The Army National Guard is at 110 percent of its year-to-date re-enlistment goal, a promising sign that it will meet or even exceed a year-end goal that's more than 2,300 higher than last year's, he said. While noting that the Army Reserve is 5 percent short of its year-to-date re-enlistment goal, Hilferty said there's strong optimism it can play catch-up by the year's end. This year's year-end goal is almost 1,500 higher than last year's, he noted. Hilferty cited several new programs and incentives he expects to support those efforts that include: A new pilot program that gives active-duty recruits who fill critical specialties for at least five years matching Thrift Savings Plan funds during their initial enlistment. Over a 20-year career, this could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars, Hilferty said. Tax exemptions for money contributed to the Thrift Savings Plan while serving in a combat zone, even if it's withdrawn early. A new $1,000 bonus incentive for high school seniors who enlist or join the Delayed Entry Program. This bonus, effective yesterday, applies to recruits who graduate, receive their diploma, score above average on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and leave for basic training before October.

Whitman College 7/19/06

6 Armed Forces Neg

Harms Answers – Recruitment Record bonuses have significantly aided re-enlistment rates Atlanta Journal-Constitution 3/10/2006 (“Bonuses Prompt Hundreds of 48th GIs to Reenlist”) accessed 7/19/2006, http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/guard/entries/2006/03/10/bonuses_prompt.html Despite the risk of death or serious injury and the hardships of a year away from friends and families, soldiers are reeinlisting in part for the money that for some will mean a down payment on a home, a new car or a nest egg for the future. Soldiers who re-enlist for six years while in a combat zone can get $15,000 tax free — an incentive that may soon be bumped to $20,000. A three-year re-enlistment nets the soldier $7,500. Although Georgia National Guard officials were able to verify only 235 of the re-enlistments with bonuses totaling nearly $3 million, they said there is often a time lag between the signing and verification of it when a unit is deployed. Since December 2004, when re-enlistment bonuses were tripled, more than $7 million in bonuses have been handed out to 48th Brigade soldiers, said Sgt. Maj. Jeff Dawkins of the Georgia Guard’s Recruiting and Retention Battalion. Military recruiters say they have not surveyed soldiers about how much the bonuses are influencing their decisions, but they believe the money obviously helps fence-sitters make up their minds. Ferrara, who has already served nine years in the military, said he would have re-enlisted without the bonus. But he can use the extra cash now. His family — with five children ages 3 to 13 — is operating on one income since his wife is studying to become a nurse. And, Ferrara said, his civilian employer, Delta Air Lines, has slashed his pay because of financial troubles. “I need the bonus,” said Ferrara, 40, of Augusta, who works as a Delta reservations supervisor. “We have been taking pay cut after pay cut for the past few years.” Persuading soldiers to re-enlist in the Guard is an ongoing effort, even in a combat zone. “We’ve had nothing but a huge success over there,” said Sgt. Maj. Anthony Weeks, also with the Georgia Guard’s Recruiting and Retention Battalion. “The numbers are extremely good.” On a recent dreary night at Tallil Air Base in southern Iraq, several 48th Brigade soldiers showed up at the post chapel to listen to two recruitment officers. The recruiters make their pitch twice a day at various military bases hoping to persuade deployed soldiers to give a few more years of their lives in service for their country. The bottom line, they tell the soldiers: “It’s government money. It’s free. Take it.” “The bonus plays a significant part. I kid you not,” said Sgt. 1st Class Jerrell Wright, an Arkansas National Guard soldier. “The financial incentives are definitely there. But then there’s pride, integrity.” The Army’s retention efforts, said Wright, were “vital” and “essential.” Especially so since the war in Iraq has apparently kept young Americans away from the military and the number of new Army recruits has dwindled. In the last fiscal year, the Army fell more than 6,000 recruits short of its goal of 80,000, the largest deficit in 26 years. But record bonuses have helped convince soldiers already serving to reenlist, despite the knowledge that they might someday be sent back to Iraq. “The risk went up dramatically when they deployed. The reward needed to keep pace with the increased risks we are asking of an American soldier,” said Lt. Col. Mike Jones, deputy division chief for Army Guard recruiting and retention at the National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Va. Nationwide, National Guard reenlistments increased by 26 percent in the first year after Congress tripled the bonuses, according to National Guard Bureau figures. Those numbers have been aided by the fact that soldiers are now able to reenlist up to their 21st year of service and still be eligible for the bonuses, something they were not able to do prior to this year, said the 48ths Owens.

Whitman College 7/19/06

7 Armed Forces Neg

Harms Answers – Reserve System The reserve system is fine. The Guard is making record gains in recruitment. Ann Scott Tyson, Staff Writer, Washington Post, 3/12/2006 (“Army Guard Refilling Its Ranks” – Washington Post) accessed 7/19/2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/03/11/AR2006031101342_pf.html The Army National Guard, which has suffered a severe three-year recruiting slump, has begun to reel in soldiers in record numbers, aided in part by a new initiative that pays Guard members $2,000 for each person they enlist. The Army Guard said Friday that it signed up more than 26,000 soldiers in the first five months of fiscal 2006, exceeding its target by 7 percent in its best performance in 13 years. At this pace, Guard leaders say they are confident they will reach their goal of boosting manpower from the current 336,000 to the congressionally authorized level of 350,000 by the end of the year. "Will we make 350,000? The answer is: Absolutely," said Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau. The rebound is striking because since 2003, the Army Guard has performed worse in annual recruiting than any other branch of the U.S. military. The Guard was shrinking while it was being asked to shoulder a big part of the burden in Iraq. Together with the Army Reserve, it supplied as many as 40 percent of the troops in Iraq while also dispatching tens of thousands of members to domestic disasters. Today, the Guard is surpassing its goals and growing in strength -- a welcome boost for an all-volunteer Army stretched thin by unprecedented deployments. In recent months, the Guard enlisted nearly as many troops as the active-duty Army, even though it is a much smaller force. Indeed, the Army Guard, present in about 3,500 U.S. communities, will launch pilot programs this year to recruit for the entire Army. "We're seeing quantum leaps," said Lt. Gen. Clyde A. Vaughn, director of the Army National Guard. "We should probably be America's recruiter for the Army."

Returning members from Iraq are bolstering recruitment for the Guard and Reserve Ann Scott Tyson, Staff Writer, Washington Post, 3/12/2006 (“Army Guard Refilling Its Ranks” – Washington Post) accessed 7/19/2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/03/11/AR2006031101342_pf.html A driving force in this year's early success, Guard leaders say, is that thousands of Guard members have now returned from Iraq and are reaching out to friends, old classmates and co-workers -- widening the face-toface contacts that officials say are critical to recruiting. Guard members "are staying with us and want to fill up units with their neighbors and friends," Blum said in an interview. "Now that they're back -- watch out."

New recruitment programs that give recruiting assistants significant bonuses are ensuring that the Guard has enough members Ann Scott Tyson, Staff Writer, Washington Post, 3/12/2006 (“Army Guard Refilling Its Ranks” – Washington Post) accessed 7/19/2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/03/11/AR2006031101342_pf.html One factor in the recruiting success is the initiative, expanded to 22 states in December, that christened 31,000 Guard members nationwide as "recruiting assistants" who can earn $2,000 for every enlistee -- $1,000 when the recruit signs a contract and another $1,000 when he or she enters boot camp or completes four months of service. The program, whose success has begun to get publicity in recent weeks, has "taken off like wildfire," said Maj. Gen. Roger P. Lempke, head of the Nebraska Guard and president of the Adjutants General Association of the United States. The first enlistment under the program was by a West Virginia guardsman who signed up his wife. West Virginia was one of five pilot states to launch the program in November. "I told her, the money is coming; this is a good idea," said Chief Warrant Officer Felix Osuna Cotto, whose wife, Loretta, had been considering the service but had not decided to join. Osuna Cotto learned about the program on Friday, Dec. 2, took Loretta to a Guard holiday dinner on Saturday, and on Sunday enrolled in the program while she talked to recruiters. "By 1 that afternoon, we became the first in the nation," said Osuna Cotto, who plans to use the $2,000 to buy his son a used car for college. Today, the new program's recruits are snowballing, growing from 10 a day to more than 120 one day last week, Vaughn said.

Whitman College 7/19/06

8 Armed Forces Neg

Harms Answers – Low Quality Soldiers Waivers aren’t made arbitrarily and do not reflect problems in recruiting Tom Bowman, Reporter, Baltimore Sun, and Quotes from Douglas Smith, Spokesman, Army Recruiting Command, Fort Knox, 2/14/2006 (“Army Accepts Crime in Recruits” – Baltimore Sun) accessed 7/9/2006, http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking06/Recruits.html Smith said he could not explain why some categories, such as misdemeanors, had increased over the past four years, while others, such as drug- and alcohol-related problems, declined. "We don't have an arbitrary floor or ceiling" on waivers, he said. "It's looking at each individual and making a decision." According to Pentagon officials, the percentage of waivers granted by the Army in the recruiting year that began in October is likely to match or exceed the figures from last year. Smith denied that the increase in waivers reflects a lowering of standards by the Army or difficulties in meeting recruiting goals. The Army has met its monthly goals for the past eight months, according to the service. In deciding to grant waivers, Smith said, the Army decides to look at the "whole person concept" and not just some past incidents.

Whitman College 7/19/06

9 Armed Forces Neg

Solvency Answers – Practical Limits to Recruitment Practical limits prevent recruitment policies from alleviating military burdens Phillip Carter, Associate, Los Angeles Office, McKenna Long & Aldridge, and former Army captain in Iraq, and Paul Glastris, Editor in Chief, The Washington Monthly, 5/3/2005 (“The Case for the Draft” – The Washington Monthly) accessed 7/9/2006, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0503.carter.html The problem with such proposals is that they underestimate both current manpower needs and the cost of forcing the all-volunteer military to grow. In theory, one can always lure the next recruit, or retain the next soldier, by offering a marginally higher monetary incentive—but in reality, there are practical limits to such measures. The pool of people who might be convinced to join the Army is mainly comprised of healthy young people with high school degrees but no college plans. That pool is inherently limited, especially when the economy is heating up and there's a shooting war on. Last year, despite signing bonuses in the tens of thousands and other perks, military recruiters had to lower entry standards to meet their enlistment goals. The active force met its recruiting targets for 2004, but the reserves have found themselves increasingly struggling to bring enough soldiers in the door. But it's the long-term cost issues that most militate against making the all-volunteer force bigger. Generals today are fond of saying that you recruit a soldier, but you retain their families. One reason the Army has resisted Congress' attempts to raise its end strength is that it does not want to embrace all of the costs associated with permanently increasing the size of the military, because it sees each soldier as a 30-year commitment—both to the soldier and his (or her) family. According to the Congressional Budget Office, each soldier costs $99,000 per year—a figure which includes medical care, housing, and family benefits.

America’s youth has an increasingly negative perception of the military that prevents recruiting Don Edwards, Retired Major General, United States Army, and Vice President, SRA International Inc., 6/12/2005 (“The Army’s Bungling Recruitment” – The Washington Post) accessed 7/19/2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100174_2.html With polls showing a solid majority of Americans now considering the Iraq invasion a mistake, Dorn predicted a troubled future for the army: “This will have an effect on white enlistments in the coming months.” A study conducted by Millward Brown, a marketing and research firm, found that among all groups, objections to the war, casualties and incidents like the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib prison were taking a toll on recruiting efforts: “Reasons for not considering military service are increasingly based on objections to the Iraq situation and aversion to the military.” The findings of both the GfK and Millward Brown studies on young people’s attitudes toward the US military cannot be heartening to the political and media establishment. Despite an unprecedented propaganda barrage since the September 11 terrorist attacks, aimed at whipping up the American population into a frenzy about the need to make the world “safe” by conquering it, American youth are increasingly unenthusiastic about the military. The GfK report, which compares the views of young people in 2000 and 2004, notes that attitudes toward the Army among all groups of American youth have grown more negative in recent years. In their summary of findings, the report’s authors write: “The Army’s recruiting mission in a post 9/11 world is an extremely difficult one.... The option of military service causes inner conflict in today’s youth.... College still ‘wins’ as the preferential choice for most young adults.” Four in ten youth indicated a willingness “to fight for my country” depending on the cause; only 22 percent indicated a willingness to fight for their country “for any cause.” Only 10 percent thought “everyone should serve in the military.”

Whitman College 7/19/06

10 Armed Forces Neg

Solvency Answers – Iraq Prevents Recruitment Alternate causality – Iraq David Moniz, Award-Winning Pentagon Reporter, USA Today, and Co-Founder, Military Reporters and Editors, 5/13/2005 (“Army Offers 15-month Hitch” – USA Today) accessed 7/9/2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-13-army-short-tour_x.htm?csp=34 Jim Martin, a retired Army officer who teaches military culture at Bryn Mawr College, said parents and teachers "see the Army as a real risk, a real danger" because of the war in Iraq. That, more than the length of service, is the major obstacle to recruiting.

Recruiting turns on Iraq. Failure to resolve instability in Iraq precludes solvency. The National Security Advisory Group, members include William Perry, Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger, and John Shalikashvili, 2006 (“The U.S. Military: Under Strain and at Risk” – Council on Foreign Relations) accessed 7/9/2006, http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/us-military_nsagreport_01252006.pdf While increasing the size of the Army would make it easier to meet future operational requirements, it will certainly not be easy. In the near term, recruiting additional soldiers will be difficult, if not impossible – at least until we turn the corner in Iraq. Building additional force structure will take time, both to establish new units and to populate them with trained personnel. Increasing force structure will also be expensive – about $1.5 billion for each new brigade plus recurring personnel costs.

Iraq is the root cause of recruiting problems Robert Novak, Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times, 5/26/2005 (“Army’s Recruiting Crisis Deepens” – Chicago SunTimes) accessed 7/19/2006, http://www.catholicpeacefellowship.org/nextpage.asp?m=2295 Retired Army Lt. Col. Charles Krohn got himself in trouble with his superiors as a Pentagon civilian public affairs official during the first 3-1/2 years of the Bush administration by telling the truth. He is still at it in private life. He says not to blame the military recruiters for the current recruiting ''scandal.'' Blame the war. ''Army recruiting is in a death spiral, through no fault of the Army,'' Krohn told me. Always defending uniformed personnel, he resents hard-pressed recruiters being attacked for offering unauthorized benefits to make quotas. In a recent e-mail sent to friends (mostly retired military), Krohn complained that the ''Army is having to compensate for a problem of national scope.'' The Army's dilemma is maintaining an all-volunteer service when volunteering means going in harm's way in Iraq. The dilemma extends to national policy. How can the United States maintain its global credibility against the Islamists, if military ranks cannot be filled by volunteers and there is no public will for a draft? Krohn's e-mail describes the problem: ''Consider the implications of being unable to find sufficient volunteers, as seen by our adversaries. Has the United States lost its will to survive? What's happened to the Great Satan when so few are willing to fight to defend the country? Surely bin Laden et al are making this argument, telling supporters victory is just around the corner if they are a bit more patient. And if they're successful, the energy sources in the Mideast may be within their grasp.''Krohn says this reality is accepted by recipients of his message. It also meets agreement from activeduty officers I have contacted but who cannot speak publicly. They ponder how an all-volunteer force can be maintained when generals say there is no end in sight for U.S. troops facing an increasingly sophisticated insurgency. Krohn's message goes on to say ''the recruiting problem is an unintended consequence of a prolonged war in Iraq, especially given the failure to find WMD.'' He therefore calls for a ''national consensus to address the root causes'' of the recruiting problem -- that is, the war in Iraq. But the focus at the Defense Department has been on the excesses of desperate recruiters, 37 of whom reflected their frustration in trying to meet quotas by going AWOL over the last 2-1/2 years. The official response was a 24-hour stand-down in recruiting to review proper procedures. It also has been proposed that enlistments, now usually three to four years with a minimum of 24 months, be cut to 15 months.

Whitman College 7/19/06

11 Armed Forces Neg

Solvency Answers – Iraq Prevents Recruitment Even extremely creative recruiting programs will fail because of Iraq John M. Collins, Former United States Colonel, Manager, Warlord Loop, and Author of 12 books on military matters, 8/1/2005 (“Army Recruiting Crisis: Problems, Responses and Prognosis” – Army Magazine) accessed 7/9/2005, http://www.ausa.org/webpub/DeptArmyMagazine.nsf/byid/KGRG-6EWRMU The most creative recruiting programs imaginable would fail to satisfy our Army’s minimum requirements under current conditions, because it is business as usual for most U.S. civilians, whose skepticism concerning protracted combat in Iraq severely constrains the pool of suitable volunteers.

Iraq is the primary cause of resistance to recruiting Don Edwards, Retired Major General, United States Army, and Vice President, SRA International Inc., 6/12/2005 (“The Army’s Bungling Recruitment” – The Washington Post) accessed 7/19/2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100174_2.html Nearly every day, anywhere from one to several U.S. soldiers or Marines die in Iraq, and even more are wounded. The news doesn't always make the front pages anymore, but the casualty rate has apparently registered deeply in the consciousness of young Americans and their families. The result is a dangerous decline in new enlistments that is depleting U.S. military resources and weakening our capacity to face additional conflicts or threats from abroad. To keep our forces strong, every soldier we lose or who leaves the service has to be replaced by a new recruit. Their leaders, meanwhile -- the men who take them into combat and help determine the outcome of many battles -- can only be replaced by soldiers who gain experience and undertake many years of leadership training. For 20 years, the all-volunteer Army, with its enlistment bonuses and generous scholarships, succeeded magnificently at filling its manpower and leadership needs. Recruits sought entry in such numbers that for a decade it was running annual surpluses that could be held over to succeeding years. But when the Iraq war began to stretch from months into years, the view of the military as an attractive option for young Americans gradually began to change. Recruiting for the Army, the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve, as well as the Marines, has become increasingly difficult, and recruiters point to the casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan as the primary cause of the unusual resistance -- including parental threats -- that they're confronting in trying to attract new enlistees.

More evidence… Don Edwards, Retired Major General, United States Army, and Vice President, SRA International Inc., 6/12/2005 (“The Army’s Bungling Recruitment” – The Washington Post) accessed 7/19/2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100174_2.html Recent reports indicate that growing opposition to the Iraq war, as well as fear of death or injury in a questionable cause, are beginning to have an effect on US Army and National Guard recruitment. This, despite bleak economic prospects for great numbers of youth and more enticing bonuses offered to all recruits.

Whitman College 7/19/06

12 Armed Forces Neg

Solvency Answers – Financial Aid Prevents Recruitment A major obstacle to recruitment is student financial aid. Plan doesn’t solve. Charles Moskos, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Northwestern University, and Former Draftee, United States Army, Summer 2001 (“What Ails the All-Volunteer Force: An Institutional Perspective” – Parameters) accessed 7/9/2006, http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/01summer/moskos.htm One major obstacle in recruitment, however, is beyond the military's control. Namely, the substantial federal aid given to college students who do not serve their country. We now spend annually over $20 billion in grants and loan subsidies to college students. We have, in effect, created a G.I. Bill without the G.I. In the long-term, there should be a push to link federal college aid to a term of service--whether military or civilian. It is noteworthy that a 1995 Gallup poll found that 40 percent of the American public favor this proposition, an amazing level of support for a concept that has not even entered the public debate.

Whitman College 7/19/06

13 Armed Forces Neg

Solvency Answers – Across-the-Board Raise Prevent Retention Across-the-board pay raises are a major obstacle to effective retention Charles Moskos, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Northwestern University, and Former Draftee, United States Army, Summer 2001 (“What Ails the All-Volunteer Force: An Institutional Perspective” – Parameters) accessed 7/9/2006, http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/01summer/moskos.htm Higher compensation should be aimed at those whose skills require extended training and job experience. Indeed, across-the-board pay raises for military personnel are misguided. To put it baldly, we now have overpaid recruits and underpaid sergeants. Pay raises should be focused on the career force, not on the lower enlisted ranks. Restoring something like the old ratio in compensation would be the best way to resolve retention problems in hard-to-fill skills and leadership positions. At the same time, we must also reduce the pay ratio between a senior noncommissioned officer and a junior officer.

Whitman College 7/19/06

14 Armed Forces Neg

Solvency Answers – Only Draft Solves Only the draft can sustain US leadership. Increasing the number of soldiers is ineffective. Phillip Carter, Associate, Los Angeles Office, McKenna Long & Aldridge, and former Army captain in Iraq, and Paul Glastris, Editor in Chief, The Washington Monthly, 5/3/2005 (“The Case for the Draft” – The Washington Monthly) accessed 7/9/2006, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0503.carter.html But there's a deeper problem, one that any president who chose to invade a country the size of Iraq would have faced. In short, America's all-volunteer military simply cannot deploy and sustain enough troops to succeed in places like Iraq while still deterring threats elsewhere in the world. Simply adding more soldiers to the active duty force, as some in Washington are now suggesting, may sound like a good solution. But it's not, for sound operational and pragmatic reasons. America doesn't need a bigger standing army; it needs a deep bench of trained soldiers held in reserve who can be mobilized to handle the unpredictable but inevitable wars and humanitarian interventions of the future. And while there are several ways the allvolunteer force can create some extra surge capacity, all of them are limited. The only effective solution to the manpower crunch is the one America has turned to again and again in its history: the draft. Not the mass combat mobilizations of World War II, nor the inequitable conscription of Vietnam—for just as threats change and war-fighting advances, so too must the draft. A modernized draft would demand that the privileged participate. It would give all who serve a choice over how they serve. And it would provide the military, on a “just in time” basis, large numbers of deployable ground troops, particularly the peacekeepers we'll need to meet the security challenges of the 21st century. America has a choice. It can be the world's superpower, or it can maintain the current all-volunteer military, but it probably can't do both.

Whitman College 7/19/06

15 Armed Forces Neg

Solvency Answers – Service Approach Fails Recruiting through the allure of service fails – the military must focus on retention of those willing to fight Phillip Carter, Associate, Los Angeles Office, McKenna Long & Aldridge, and former Army captain in Iraq, and Owen West, Trader, Goldman Sachs, and served in Iraq for the U.S. Marines, 6/2/2005 (“Dismissed!” – Slate Magazine) accessed 7/9/2006, http://editor.slate.com/default.aspx/id/2120146/ The services must shift the manpower priority from recruiting to retention. The fact that the Navy and Air Force have consistently met their recruiting quotas in the face of a global war demonstrates that there is no shortage of young Americans willing to join the military. Shouldering a rifle in the mountains of Tora Bora or on Fallujah's streets is a different story, however. Though the Army and Marines have to recruit less than a quarter of 1 percent of the eligible population each year, they are finding that America's warrior class is small. "There's a difference between those who want some life experience and those who want to fight," says a Marine recruiter. "And most of [the latter] sign up anyway." The focus should be on retaining those who gravitate to the tip of the spear instead of coercing those more comfortable with service than soldiering.

The length of enlistment isn’t important. The biggest barrier to recruitment is fear of dying or going to war. Don Edwards, Retired Major General, United States Army, and Vice President, SRA International Inc., 6/12/2005 (“The Army’s Bungling Recruitment” – The Washington Post) accessed 7/19/2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100174_2.html Among those opposed to joining, fear “is the biggest barrier to joining the military.” The study observes, “In the past, barriers [to enlisting in the army] were about inconvenience, or preference for another life choice. Now they have switched to something quite different:—fear of death or injury.” Nearly twice as many young men and women in 2004 over four years earlier listed fear of dying, being injured or going to war “as a barrier to military service for them.” The desire not to die or be injured in a combat zone or even go to war or a combat zone was the leading single factor for not joining the military, cited by 26 percent of those surveyed. Twenty-one percent mentioned hostility to “military life,” and 20 percent—a not insignificant figure—objected to the military as an institution. The latter group did not believe in war or fighting or considered itself “pacifist.” The drop in recruitment and a growing aversion to the military among young people inevitably raise an issue that none of the above-mentioned articles cared to tackle: conscription. Under conditions of shrinking enlistment in the military and an ever-lengthening list of countries targeted for Washington’s violent and bloody brand of “democratic” makeover, the American ruling elite cannot pursue its worldwide aims without reintroducing compulsory military service.

Whitman College 7/19/06

16 Armed Forces Neg

Solvency Answers – Too Short for Training 15 months isn’t enough time for training David Moniz, Award-Winning Pentagon Reporter, USA Today, and Co-Founder, Military Reporters and Editors, 5/13/2005 (“Army Offers 15-month Hitch” – USA Today) accessed 7/9/2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-13-army-short-tour_x.htm?csp=34 David Segal, a military personnel expert at the University of Maryland, said the 15-month enlistments are no panacea. Fifteen months, Segal said, is often not enough time to learn complex tasks in a high-tech Army.

Short-term recruits fail because there 15 months is not enough time for training and the program won’t provide immediate relief Bryan A. Keogh, Writer in the Washington Bureau, Chicago Tribune, 3/8/2003 (“Military Recruiters Target College Ranks” – Chicago Tribune) p. lexis But not everyone is enthusiastic about the new plan. Cindy Williams, a military analyst at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's security studies program, argues that because the military can fill its ranks, there is no need for a program whose positive results she considers dubious. The enlistment period is too short to train someone, Williams said, and she questioned the program's ability to attract the targeted audience. The new program is not likely to affect a possible war in Iraq, because it would not take effect until well after a conflict would be launched.

Short-term enlistees would raise training costs and would be ill-suited for military tasks Bradley Graham, Staff Writer, The Washington Post, 3/18/1999 (“Key Senator Backs 18-Month Enlistment” – The Washington Post) p. lexis Military officials generally prefer longer terms. They have worried that reducing enlistment periods would raise training costs. They also have argued that today's high-tech weaponry and complicated peacekeeping assignments require soldiers with greater skills and professionalism than can be taught in abbreviated tours of duty.

If the program fails it does double damage to the military recruiting because of budgetary tradeoffs Stanley Kurtz, Contributor Editor, National Review, 4/21/2003 (“It’s Getting a Little Drafty: Our Armed Forces Need Expansion. How to go about it?” – The National Review) accessed 7/9/2005, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_7_55/ai_99624000/print The military's objections are understandable. As it stands, funding for the program will have to come out of the Pentagon's current recruitment budget. Sensibly enough, the Pentagon is reluctant to tamper with an already fragile recruitment system for the sake of an unproven experiment.

Whitman College 7/19/06

17 Armed Forces Neg

Solvency Answers – Plan Hurts Morale Short-term enlistment targeted at college graduates would undermine morale Michael P. Noonan, Research Fellow and Deputy Director of the Program on National Security, Foreign Policy Research Institute, 1/19/2005 (“The Future of the Reserves and the National Guard: A Conference Report” – Foreign Policy Research Institute) http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20050119.military.noonan.citizensoldier.html Lieutenant Colonel (ret.) Ralph Peters, a writer, strategist, and commentator, opened his remarks by disagreeing with Moskos’ call for short-term enlistments. He argued that bringing in college graduates on special terms would hurt AC morale. “If you’re going to bring in more college kids, then put them down with the NASCAR kids, where they will learn a little bit about America,” he said. He said that he did not necessarily disagree with providing increased educational benefits to service-members, but they should not be targeted solely on college enlistees.

Short-term enlistment would be too costly, cause divisions within the force, and doesn’t constitute the radical change that is needed Michael P. Noonan, Research Fellow and Deputy Director of the Program on National Security, Foreign Policy Research Institute, 1/19/2005 (“The Future of the Reserves and the National Guard: A Conference Report” – Foreign Policy Research Institute) http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20050119.military.noonan.citizensoldier.html Richard H. Kohn, Professor of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and former Chief Historian of the United States Air Force, opened by commending Moskos’ call for expanding national service but later stated that it would be too expensive and might cause negative socio-economic divisions in the force based upon assignments. The major problem today, according to Kohn, is that the realities of America’s global commitments were no longer “conducive to or appropriate for a citizen army or citizen-soldiers.” Furthermore, the notion of the citizen-soldier is dead. Kohn argued that the RC are now part-time professionals. Citing survey data from a Triangle Institute for Strategic Studies study of 1998-99, Kohn noted that RC officer attitudes were “almost exactly congruent with their regular counterparts in values, attitudes, opinions, and perspectives.” What is needed is a radical, holistic review and reconsideration of the entire military establishment.

Whitman College 7/19/06

18 Armed Forces Neg

Solvency Answers – Plan Hurts Readiness Short-term enlistment results in high casualty rates, units that lack cohesiveness, and inexperienced soldiers. The net effect is worse than have less recruits. Don Edwards, Retired Major General, United States Army, and Vice President, SRA International Inc., 6/12/2005 (“The Army’s Bungling Recruitment” – The Washington Post) accessed 7/19/2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100174_2.html Now, the Army's latest desperate attempt to gain recruits is a shortened, 15-month enlistment policy. A 15month enlistment means that soldiers will receive only basic and advanced individual training, but none of the team and unit training our premier soldiers traditionally receive. These recruits will be shipped off to war after only five months of training, deployed to units in combat where they know no one. These inexperienced soldiers will be at an enormous disadvantage and the casualties among them will be bound to reflect that disadvantage. The 15-month enlistment is exactly the replacement policy the Army has proudly rejected since the Vietnam War. This flawed approach was instituted then because of the urgent need to replace casualties. We ended up with units of inadequately trained soldiers who didn't know each other and weren't fully cohesive teams. The result was high casualties among the newly arrived, inexperienced soldiers -- and it will likely be the result again. It would probably be better to maintain high standards and not reduce training time, even if this leads to temporary shortages.

Expanding short-term recruits would undermine readiness Gil Klein, National Correspondent, Media General News, 2/9/2003 (“Uncle Sam Wants You! And Or Your Children For 18 Months” – Information Clearing House) accessed 7/9/2006, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1186.htm But the Defense Department didn't seek it. ``We just came off our best recruiting year in quite a while,'' said Robert Clark, assistant director for accession policy. ``To meet our numbers, we did not need this new program.''Some military manpower experts question whether the armed forces will be well served by the program. While they favor encouraging more college graduates to enlist, the services fear that short-term enlistments could cause ``turbulence'' within what has become a well-oiled military machine, Clark said. ``In modest numbers, we don't think the turbulence will affect readiness,'' he said. ``And I emphasize modest numbers.''

Short-term enlistments result in high turnover offsetting any readiness gains Louis Caldera, Former Secretary of the Army, 3/12/1999 (“Being All They Can Be” – NewsHour with Jim Lehrer) accessed 7/9/2006, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june99/army_3-12.html LOUIS CALDERA: Yes. May I say, first of all, I don't disagree that we ought to go after more of our collegeenrolled and college-bound graduates because it is important to talk to young people. It's not just a role that those who can't afford college fulfill to be of service to their country. Short enlistments do present a problem in terms of high turnover in units, and so the terms of unit training and readiness that you can't go too short, and you won't get the return on the training investment that you need to make. But it's not --going after the GED market and segmenting that market and finding those individuals who want to serve passionately is not lowering standards; it's defining quality standards that make sense. There's nothing in and of being a high school graduate that in and of itself makes you a great candidate. In fact, some of our high school graduates score lower on mental category tests; that is, they rank in the lower half, whereas our GED that we take, we don't take anybody except those that are in the top half.

Whitman College 7/19/06

19 Armed Forces Neg

Solvency Answers – Moskos Doesn’t Support Plan Moskos doesn’t advocate the plan anymore Robert Novak, Columnist, Chicago Sun-Times, 5/26/2005 (“Army’s Recruiting Crisis Deepens” – Chicago SunTimes) accessed 7/19/2006, http://www.catholicpeacefellowship.org/nextpage.asp?m=2295 The recruiting guru Charles Moskos, professor emeritus at Northwestern University who once suggested an 18-month tour, now says shorter enlistments will not help. He proposes restoring the draft, but that is a political non-starter. Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel, who as a drafted soldier won the Bronze Star in Korea, is one of the very few members of Congress who advocate the draft. He does not hide his motive: A president would be politically unable to take a conscript army into wars such as Iraq.

Whitman College 7/19/06

20 Armed Forces Neg

Incentives CP – Solvency Retention problems can be fixed by implementing RAND recommendations and overhauling the pay and promotion system Phillip Carter, Associate, Los Angeles Office, McKenna Long & Aldridge, and former Army captain in Iraq, and Owen West, Trader, Goldman Sachs, and served in Iraq for the U.S. Marines, 6/2/2005 (“Dismissed!” – Slate Magazine) accessed 7/9/2006, http://editor.slate.com/default.aspx/id/2120146/ An April 2005 study by the RAND Corp. recommended a number of ways the Army could reduce its "first term attrition" problem—the early discharge of soldiers during their first tour of duty. About 20 percent of recruits who enlist never even start active duty, and another 36 percent of those who do report to basic training fail to complete their first term of service (generally a hitch between two and four years). The report cited causes such as poor physical conditioning and low educational attainment. (For example, recruits with GEDs drop out at higher rates than those with high-school diplomas.) Surprisingly, the report found that college funding, bonuses, and the length of an enlistment contract had little to no bearing on first-term attrition. The RAND report recommends a number of fixes focused on giving the most tenuous recruits extra attention and keeping them competitive and fit once they reach boot camp. The Army has yet to implement any of these recommendations, but it's a safe bet they could retain at least as many soldiers by heeding these suggestions as by keeping those marked for early discharge. If retention is the goal, the military pay and promotion system needs a complete overhaul. First, retention bonuses should more closely mirror recruiting costs. Today they lag by more than 50 percent. Further, there is little science involved in setting incentives. Exit interviews need to become a systematic piece of the resignation process—just as they are in civilian companies—with an emphasis on using incentives to encourage people to stick around. The Department of Defense needs to find the marginal rate that would encourage the most service members to "stay soldier" while still saving on replacement costs. Second, the lock-step, caste-based pay system needs to be scrapped. In its place, a risk-adjusted bonus system needs to be built to target the growing majority of soldiers who cite "hardship" as their reason for leaving the service. The current system pays soldiers working in airconditioned office cubicles the same salary as soldiers slogging it out for 13 months in Najaf.

More effective retention policies would stave off the proliferation of private military forces Phillip Carter, Associate, Los Angeles Office, McKenna Long & Aldridge, and former Army captain in Iraq, and Owen West, Trader, Goldman Sachs, and served in Iraq for the U.S. Marines, 6/2/2005 (“Dismissed!” – Slate Magazine) accessed 7/9/2006, http://editor.slate.com/default.aspx/id/2120146/ For years, the infantryman was underpaid because he had no civilian proxy; computer technicians and aircraft-maintenance chiefs were paid bigger bonuses because of direct civilian competition for their services. Today, the infantryman has an option. It's called private military contracting, it pays six-figure salaries, and it's so flexible that you can set your own deployment dates. The Pentagon must stop the proliferation of its private army. Today there are as many as 30,000 private military contractors serving in traditional military billets. They are paid up to five times as much as soldiers performing the same duties. Encouraging the privatization of soldiers when there is a severe shortage of riflemen is circular reasoning. While the Army and Marines struggle to increase their infantry ranks, the DoD is paying private companies lucrative contracts to act as personnel brokers. Where do these firms find the recruits? The military. So the government is paying hefty finders' fees to locate quality soldiers it recruited in the first place. Far from being castoffs, they are among America's best, mostly senior soldiers lured by pay and flexibility. They belong in the ranks of the Army and the USMC, not the NYSE.

Whitman College 7/19/06

21 Armed Forces Neg

Financial Aid CP – Solvency Tying financial aid to service would produce dramatic recruiting gains in the military as well as civilian service Charles Moskos, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Northwestern University, and Former Draftee, United States Army, Spring 2002 (“Reviving the Citizen-Soldier” – Public Interest) accessed 7/9/2006, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_2002_Spring/ai_84557330/print Indeed, a major obstacle to military recruitment is the substantial amount of federal aid already given to college students. We now spend annually over $20 billion in grants and loan subsidies to college students. We have, in effect, created a G.I. Bill without the G.I. If we want to encourage the ideal of service, there must be a push to link federal college aid to enlistment--whether military or civilian. It is noteworthy that a 1995 Gallup poll found that 40 percent of the American public favored this proposition, an amazing level of support for a concept that has not even entered the public debate. A U.S. Army recruiting study showed that linking federal aid to some form of national service would boost military enlistments as well as civilian service.

Whitman College 7/19/06

22 Armed Forces Neg

RMA DA – Links RMA is focused on application of IT to the military. Achieving the potential of the RMA requires de-emphasizing ground forces Frank G. Hoffman, Research Fellow, United States Marine Corps’ Center for Emerging Threats and Opportunities, Spring 2005 (“The Guard and Reserve in America’s New Missions” – Orbis) p. ScienceDirect The Military Revolutionaries embrace the application of information technology to American security matters. This school holds that technological advances have substantially altered the conduct of military operations, displacing mass and quantity with precision and quality. Its adherents point to new technologies that allow us to conduct operations more efficiently, with far fewer forces or platforms. To achieve the potential of the rma, force modernization investments are being shifted from active forces, especially ground forces, to space-based platforms, aviation-strike capabilities, and advanced sensors and information networks that link our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities to precision-strike systems.