It is so very good to have someone agree with you, especially when that person is highly placed and has the job of knowing what he is talking about.

You will remember in my recent posts (here and here) about Congressmen (and I use that term loosely) Rangel and his intention to introduce legislation to bring back the draft. I stated a belief that an all volunteer military is the way to go. We, as a society, believe in pride of service and that would be lost in any mandatory service program.

Well, it looks like Defense Department agrees with me.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20, 2006 – Citing the all-volunteer force’s success, a senior Defense Department official said today that a draft would diminish the quality of U.S. forces and put more of the burden of service on the nation’s poor.

“I think the draft is opposed by anybody who has given it serious thought,” said Bill Carr, deputy undersecretary of defense for military personnel policy.

That, in case you missed it, would preclude Rangal who is not known for his depth of intellectual insight.

Carr said the draft is not cost-effective and would force the military to lower its standards for recruits. A Government Accountability Office report, he said, estimated that a draft would add $4 billion in annual costs to DoD. Because draftees usually spend the minimum time they possibly can in the military, the services would have to pump more money into training and would get less return on their training investments than they do with the all-volunteer force, he explained.

An interesting and certainly valid point. Democrats are not known for increasing defense spending, how would they plan to handle this issue? They have probably, to Carr’s point, not thought that far ahead.

Rangal’s main premise to date has been that the current military draws heavily on the poor, and a draft would spread the load to the middle and upper class as well. Carr says that is not the case.

“I think that it would make the military more average, and the military is considerably above average today,” Carr said. “Two-thirds of our recruits are from the top half aptitude (range), whereas an average or equitable share would be only half. Moreover, we draw disproportionately from the middle class and the upper class. The underrepresented (in the military) are the poor. A draft would only shift the burden toward the poor.”

To bad Kerry didn’t see these stats, with 2/3rd of military recruits coming from the top of the aptitude testing range, it makes Kerry’s comments (though perhaps unintentional) look even more foolish.

What about Rangel’s statements that an all volunteer military cannot work long term due to the increasing demand of the War on Terror? Carr addressed that too.

Proponents for the draft say that the military cannot make the all-volunteer force work. This belies 33 years of experience, Carr said, noting that all services continue to make the recruiting goals and the recruiters continue to draw “above-average, exceptionally well-qualified young people.”

Retention is the best it has ever been, Carr said. Under the draft, two-thirds of the military were in their first two years of service. Today, two-thirds of the men and women in the force have served at least six years.

As to whether there’s enough Army for the jobs around the world — the 3rd Infantry Division headquarters, for example, will begin its third year-long rotation to Iraq next year - Carr said making the military larger has drawbacks.

“If you have a large number of rotations, you could stand to have a larger military,” Carr acknowledged. “But, what goes up inevitably must come down. If we were to grow the military and find ourselves in a few years shrinking it, that is one thing military leaders fear, because of the bond we created with those who joined us.”

If the Army temporarily needs more people, then the president can call up the reserve components, Carr said.

If the idea is to make the active duty Army larger, then the military would find itself shedding people in the future, he said. The services are working to make the most of their current ceilings on uniformed members by converting manpower authorizations that don’t require a person in uniform to civilian positions, Carr said. This approach, he explained, puts more military people into uniquely military positions.

Proposals to reinstate the draft certainly create debate in America, Carr noted. “But the debate inevitably comes to the conclusion that America won’t have (a draft), and the military would resist it because it’s going to lower our performance,” he said. “The all-volunteer force is successful beyond the wildest expectations of its framers.”

Carr is not someone we come into contact with much, but he seems to be very sharp. His biography is impressive as well.

Carr has the right of it, and most importantly, we need to trust our military and their appointed civilian overseers on matters such as this. A draft should only pass though congress if presented and supported by the military arm of the government. Having it start there is the height of arrogance - something our new congress and Mr. Rangal in particular, seem to have in surplus.