Moral Hazard and The Draft

[Marauder06]

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ll-volunteer-army/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

On the other hand, I know from personal experience that, before the invasion of Iraq and thereafter, this welfare-economic analysis of the military draft was music to the ears of the many undergraduates who enthusiastically cheered on that invasion and the subsequent dangerous occupation of Iraq, leaving the fighting, the bleeding and the dying to someone else, all the while being assured by their economics professors that by this posture they were actually helping to maximize their nation’s overall economic welfare

blahblahblah

Yeah, the main takeaway from this article is, the people who do the "deciding" aren't the same ones that do the "fighting and dying." WHy are they so special?

The dictionary defines moral hazard as “a situation in which one party gets involved in a risky event knowing that it is protected against the risk and the other party will incur the cost,” or as Investopedia puts it, as the “idea that a party that is protected in some way from risk will act differently than if they didn’t have that protection.”

 

[Marine0311]

Because they hold the power and you do not.

 

[Il Duce]

I'm not sure if there's no risk to those who decide on conflict - especially in the executive branch. True, they're not risking their lives, or those of their families (and probably not even friends) but from a political standpoint there is risk to re-election, popularity, political capital, etc. in conflict. I think those risks do affect decision-making for better or worse. I'm not sure we'd necessarily have a more effective national-security decision-making process if everyone in the room had a kid in the first wave.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Interesting take on things. A lot of th guys I work with are former military and of those that arent, it's a split of former LE and college kids, so us prior service types give the college kids a lot of grief. One kid actually said: "I would have joined the Army but I HAD to go to college." The sentiment has always been that kids who can't enlist. It is almost comical how successful many of the guys I served with are, post-military. On the flip side I have been told that the only reason I am successful is because of my (multiple) enlistments. Which, to some extent is true, but as we all know, shit isn't handed out, at least no to us "low cost" types.

In other words, it is easy to support a war or conflict when you have nothing invested.

 

[Il Duce]

I listened to an interview on NPR or HBR with Robert Gates promoting his book 'Duty.' One of the most interesting things he talked about (in my opinion) was the reasons he left office - though the President had said he could stay as long as he liked. One of the things he talked about as a reason for leaving was he felt he had become too invested and emotional about combat losses in Afghanistan. He said when debating intervention in Libya and Syria he found himself powerfully influenced by his visceral reaction to having to lose more Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines and write those letters home. On reflection he felt those emotions did a disservice to his role - to be an objective proponent for the national security of the US.

Just thought it was a very interesting take and insight into his thought process. Made me think of that Gettysburg quote attributed to Robert E. Lee, something like 'to be a good officer one has to love the Army, to be a good general one has to be willing to order the death of the thing you love.' Not sure how historically accurate it is but encapsulates the necessity to take risks yet not break faith or waste lives.