Military escalation in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush and Obama administrations

New Way Forward

Nearly a decade at war in Iraq and Afghanistan has put an unprecedented strain on the United States military, as enlistment has not kept pace with the needs of the armed forces. In response to this rapidly worsening crisis, the Army in recent years has relaxed enlistment standards in a number of areas. In particular, the Army has dramatically increased the number of enlistment waivers it grants for both felons and overweight individuals. While this has increased the number of new service-members enlisted and current service-members retained, it has also reduced the effectiveness and professionalism of the Army on both the individual and organizational level. In the future, the Army can and should sue alternatives methods to meet enlistment requirements so that it is not put in this kind of ethical and strategic dilemma again.

While the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan obviously put a toll on the United States' all-volunteer military, it was the two surges that truly tested the limits of the military's ability to recruit and retain service-members. In 2007 President Bush order a "surge" of over twenty thousand more soldiers into Iraq, and in response the military was forced to dramatically increase its supply of available service-members above and beyond what had already been required as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan (Korb, 2007, p. 467). Having an all-volunteer military presents the United States with recruitment difficulties not faced by countries with compulsive service requirements, but its all-volunteer status is also what gives it the kind of professionalism and expertise that allows it function effectively in the contemporary world (Korb, 2007, p467-468). Thus, the surge forced the military to find a way to increase recruitment and retainment without diminishing the professionalism of the armed forces. Faced with a seemingly lose-lose situation, the Army opted to lower it enlistment standards by increasing the number of waivers given for a variety of criminal offenses as well as the failure to meet physical fitness standards.

To understand the extremity of the Army's response, one need only compare the number of waivers given for felony records in 2006 and 2007, after the announcement of the surge. In 2006, the Army admitted 249 new service-members with felony records (Associated Press, 2008). The next year, in response to the staffing demands of the surge, the Army allowed in over twice that many (Associated Press, 2008). While some have defended the practice by noting that many of the felonies occurred while the service-members were still minors, the fact remains that many of these felony arrests are completely incongruous with the Army's value-based force (Alvarez, 2008).

For example, the Army allowed in forty-three individuals with a record of aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon, as well as new members with records of "kidnapping, making terroristic threats, rape or sexual abuse, and indecent acts or liberties with a child" (Alvarez, 2008). In addition to these more obviously threatening histories, the Army allowed in far more individuals with history of drug abuse, thus increasing the likelihood that drug abuse will become a more serious problem within the Army (Alvarez, 2008; Associated Press, 2008). Allowing more felons to enlist harms the Army on the individual and organizational level by detracting from Army's professionalism and readiness. On the individual level, allowing more felons in diminishes the reputation of those individual who have demonstrated good judgment and character throughout their lives, even before enlisting. This individual diminishing of the cohesiveness and quality of the Army constituent members spreads throughout the entire organization, increasing the likelihood that individual with poor judgment will be needed in key positions and situations. Furthermore, the push to retain these recruits following their initial deployment only heightens the risk to the armed forces by placing high-risk individuals under extra pressure (Alvarez, 2008).

In addition to an increase in the number of waivers allowed for felons, the Army has also relaxed its standards in the area of health and physical fitness. In particular, it has allowed a greater number of overweight individual to enlist, and has begun retaining individuals with medical conditions that previously would have disqualified them from service (Bendo et. al., 2010, p. 188; Alvarez, 2008). While the danger from allowing felons to enlist may appear somewhat more ephemeral, the risk of increasing waivers for health and physical fitness problems is painfully obvious. In short, in order to fulfill recruitment requirements, the Army has literally made itself weaker by allowing in individuals who would otherwise never have been acceptable (Yamane, 2007, p. 1160). While in some respects the Army does need as many bodies as it can get, if the quality of the bodies diminish substantially it will be reflected in the organization as a whole, in the same way that recruiting individuals with poor character will ultimately diminish the character of the organization as a whole.

Instead of relaxing the requirements for the individuals the Army recruits to meet the demands of the surge, the Army should have looked somewhere more promising. In the face of a previously unheard-of need for troop increases, the military imagined it had to start lowering its requirements, in effect scraping the bottom of the barrel. Instead of settling for the individuals it imagined it needed, the Army should have gone looking for the recruits it wanted by focusing on recruiting educated individuals. For example, in the wake of the surge the military started accepting more individuals with high school degrees, but instead it should have started trying to recruit more individuals intent on going to college by focusing on the valuable training and skills that the Army can offer people before they go to college. In addition, the Army could make every effort to encourage individuals to enlist after college, thus ensuring that it has a stable of educated, well-rounded recruits for the next generation of officers and leaders. Although it would have taken more effort and precision that lowering standards across the board, if managed well something like this could help the Army meets its recruitment requirements while also increasing the professionalism and prestige of the organization.