Who Serves?

The Persistent Myth Of The Underclass Army

Sue E Berryman

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9780367216269
• eBook ISBN: 9781000010473
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book provides an introduction to important socio-political issues and selected demographic data underlying recurrent debates concerning both the mythic and actual social composition and quality of U.S. enlisted forces

1

The All Volunteer Force: An Extension of the Welfare State?

DOI: 10.4324/9780429267536-1

Policymakers and the media have monitored and critiqued the numeric strength, quality, and social composition of the All Volunteer Force (AVF) since its inception in 1973. However, national attention intensified in the late 1970s and early 1980s, as evidenced by major articles on the AVF in the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Atlantic Monthly, by Congressional hearings, and by conferences such as the American Assembly on the topic of the AVF versus the draft. An implicit assumption in this debate was that the AVF had become an extension of domestic youth and welfare policy—an “employer of last resort,” an employment and training activity for youth who could not succeed “on the outside.” The debate also implicitly assumed that this extension jeopardized the effectiveness, efficiency, and fairness of our national defense.

Does the AVF represent an extension of the welfare state? I suggest that we consider the AVF an extension if it duplicates the opportunities and clients uniquely associated with domestic youth welfare policy. Under the Carter administration four programs accounted for most of the federal expenditures on high school and post-high school youth: the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), Job Corps, secondary vocational education, and the post-secondary financial aid programs (especially the Guaranteed Student Loan and Pell Grant programs). These programs financed training, employment, and educational opportunities.

Two programs (CETA and Job Corps) targeted youth who came from poor families and/or who had employment problems. They disproportionately served minority groups. For example, although the majority of CETA youth clients were white, from fiscal years 1976 through 1979 black youth participated in CETA at about triple their representation in the population; hispanic youth, at about double. Vocational education serves all youth, but the heaviest users of vocational services come from poorer families. The large post-secondary grant programs target youth from a socially and economically broader spectrum of families. Although these programs are therefore less apt to be seen as “welfare” programs, they in fact represent federal subsidies for youth.

AVF OPPORTUNITIES

By the criterion of opportunities, the AVF does not represent an extension of the welfare state. The military provides opportunities that echo those of the major domestic youth programs. They give skill training, employment, and match enlistee contributions for educational purposes. However, many private sector employers offer the same opportunities, including tuition aid programs.¹

Military service also offers opportunities that fundamentally distinguish it from domestic welfare programs. These opportunities are best thought of as status transformations. Especially during wartime, military service can confer political, social, economic, and adult legitimacy on individuals and for this reason contravenes our notions of “welfare.” As Beck (1971) points out, military service fundamentally differs from welfare programs in that it distributes opportunities on the basis of contribution, not need. Military service produces several different status transformations.

It transforms boys into men. This theme appears in earlier enlistment advertisements such as “Join the Army, Be a Man;” “The Army will make a man out of you;’’ or (the Marine Corps) “We take only a few good men” (Arkin and Dobrofsky, 1978). Several characteristics of military service support this image. The enlisted force relies heavily on individuals of ages associated with the transition from youth to adulthood. As an institution, the military controls raw “masculine” power. Although only about IS percent of today’s military jobs are combat jobs, the military role is still seen as that of warrior. Enlistment standards stress physical fitness, and the rigors of basic training echo the hardship rituals associated with (he manhood rites de passage of many tribes and social groups.

It enfranchises the politically disenfranchised. As Theodore Roosevelt noted, “Universal service and universal suffrage go hand in hand” (Sales de Bohigos, 1967–1968).² Since the founding of the Republic and especially during war, the United States government has offered citizenship to aliens in exchange for honorable military service. As Jacobs and Hayes (1981) point out, “The idea that one who fights for the United States is entitled to become a citizen is deeply embedded in our traditions. Millions of immigrants have entered the societal mainstream, legally and socially, by serving in the armed forces.” [P. 188] From 1945–1977, 3.9 million persons were naturalized. Of these, about 190 thousand or 5 percent achieved naturalization on the basis of military service.

Eitelberg (1979) and Novak (1972) make similar points, Eitelberg noting that “[e]ntry into the American melting pot has first meant proven loyalty, sacrifice, and, frequently, some price-in-blood.” [P. 110] Novak states that “[i]t is no accident that acceptance into the society has been preceded by large losses on the battlefield—the Irish in the Civil War, the Poles, in World War I; the blacks, in Vietnam.” It is also no accident that the Congress lowered the voting age to eighteen years at the end of the Vietnam War.

It confers legitimate careers on those from groups that hold marginal social and economic positions in the country. The military enfranchises not only politically, but also socially and economically. The social reputation of the military varies, increasing during “popular’ wars and declining during peacetime and “unpopular” wars. However, in general, military service represents a legitimate, and, sometimes, highly honored occupation. Its legitimacy arises from its basic function, defense of the nation; its...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Contents Page
• List of Tables Page
• List of Figures Page
• Preface Page
• Acknowledgments Page
• Introduction Page
• 1 The All Volunteer Force: An Extension of the Welfare State?
• 2 Composition of the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Volunteer Enlisted Forces
• 3 Representativeness of Wartime Enlisted Forces
• 4 The Politics of Enlisted Manpower Composition
• 5 Loyalty to Civilian Values and Government Policies
• 6 Deterrent and Combat Effectiveness
• 7 Equal Sacrifice
• 8 Equal Entitlement
• 9 Epilogue
• Bibliography
• Index