While watching an episode of the TV show, Boston Legal, the other night, I was intrigued by a closing argument delivered by James Spader acting as Attorney Alan Shore.

The case concerned the Feres Doctrine, A legal doctrine that prevents people who are injured as a result of military service from successfully suing the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act.  This doctrine holds true even in the grosses cases of medical negligence and malpractice where permanent disability or death is caused from medical mistakes.

As part of the prosecution, the argument was made that the Feres Doctrine should be set aside because of the incompetence and low standards of military enlistees.  This conclusion was based, in part, on the All Volunteer Force (AVF) program.

It was argued that the AVF took advantage of low income, under privileged, under educated, at risk youth by providing enlistment as possibly the only alternative to improving their lot in life. 

Recruiters, the show said were located in the most disadvantaged parts of town, pitched the AVF as an alternative to poverty and misery and, extending that same logic to a life of crime and depravity.  At that point, my interest switched from the Feres Doctrine, which I agree should still be revised, to the AVF.

The 35 year old (1973) All Volunteer Force has been highly successful.  It places no one at a disadvantage and forces no one to join, but, admittedly, it does allow wealthy and privileged Americans to avoid military service. The AVF also allows low income, and underprivileged Americans to avoid the military.

In 2006, The Heritage Foundation found that the largest majority of enlistees were not from the underprivileged ranks, but from the mainstream of America.  Only about 10 percent come from the lowest income bracket ($0.00 to $33,267) while the top 50 percent of enlistees are from neighborhoods with income levels between $51,128 and $246,333. 
 
So, AVF enlistees do not spring from dungeons of despair to cauldrons of courage.  They are not the richest, or perhaps even the smartest.  They are average, decent American kids and, without doubt, the most patriotic.

Even before the AVF, enlistees reflected the American Society, but commissioned officers, especially those coming from one of the three military academies, West Point, Annapolis or the Air Force Academy, were reflections of the military and not society. 

Approximately 40 percent of the student population was raised in the homes of senior military officers, came from military parents, or were once active duty military themselves.  I point this out not because it is a bad thing, but because it is a good thing.  There is much to be said for family tradition.

Many, supposed experts have claimed that the AVF distorts racial statistics and more minorities are forced to serve and die for lack of better career alternatives.  You have to be kidding me!

Using 2006-2007 Non-Prior Service Accessions, the Heritage Foundation found that those identifying themselves as white, make up 61.99 percent of the Total U.S. Male Population, 18-24 years old and enlisted at a 65.32 percent rate, while blacks who made up 11.87 percent of the population enlisted at a 12.34 percent rate—almost dead on.

Enlistees, under the AVF, are better educated than their predecessors.  Today, over 92 percent of enlistees have a high school diploma.  In the Air Force and Navy that number reaches almost 99 percent.  In addition, 70 percent of enlistees score in the upper half of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test.  Well above those who choose to stay in the private sector.

A RAND Corporation Report, "The evolution of the all volunteer force, 2006," found that the AVF had changed the military for the better.  That the quality of the force, measured by scores on standardized tests, had improved.  The percent of new recruits with high school diplomas had increased and that the AVF had dramatically increased the number of career personnel and increased the proficiency and professionalism of the force.

The largest drawback to the AVF is the budget.  Initial enlistment and retention bonuses must be large enough to encourage careerism, and annual cost-of-living raises must be adequate to keep the force from falling behind the civilian sector—as was done during the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s.

In 2008, the active military recruited 184,000 new enlistees and Reserve and Guard recruited some 132,000 enlistees—all, 100 percent of their recruiting goals. 

Thanks to the AVF, we have some of the finest young people in uniform that America has to offer. 

Thanks also, to Boston Legal’s assertions, these same young people were disrespected without cause or justification.