Military Recruitment in the U.S., China, and Russia

Posted On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 by Andrei Hluski under International Strategic Studies

What is the background, history situation, relevant data, problems etc:

In this paper I will analyze military recruitment in professional all-volunteer army in the U.S. and China and compulsory military service system in Russia. The concept of compulsory military service also known as conscription is not new. It has been used for centuries and still enforced in many countries. In the modern history the concept of mandatory military service dates back to eighteen centuries where many European countries started adopting it for a peace time and male population would have to spend time on active duty. The number of years could range greatly from country to country and could be as long as eight years. According to Pew Research Center (2019)fewer than a third of countries currently have a military draft and most exclude women.

Figure 1

Source: Pew Research Center

Only 11 out of 60 countries where conscription is currently legally authorized draft women. Those countries are: Chad, Eritrea, Israel, Mozambique, Norway, North Korea and Sweden. Norway introduced female conscription in 2015, making it the first NATO member to have a legally compulsory national service for both men and women (conscription article, cite). Conscription has always been a controversy for a many reasons, including conscientious objection to military service based on religious political objection, of ideological objection. Some countries made it possible to replace military combat related service by alternative services such as compulsory community service in Finland and Austria. 85 countries have no laws in place to enforce conscription , and for 23 laws are in place but drafts are not enforced.

Figure 2

Source: Pew Research Center

Out of those 60 where conscription is enforced, males are drafted in 45 and both genders drafted in 11 leaving 4 unknown (Pew Research Center 2019). Some countries like the U.S. have a selective service system where military can freely choose who to draft from those who registered for military service. Some countries that have service requirements legally in place, still may never be called to serve. It remains the fact for Norway where law requires all men and women (after 2015) to serve 12 months till age 44, only one in six citizens will actually end up in the uniform (Pew 2019). Some nations including Albania, Ecuador, Jordan and Poland, Taiwan, stopped conscription recently, however conscription remains on the books and could be reinstated if there are not enough volunteers on active duty (ibid). Some other nations that discontinued draft, decided to reinstate it. For example, Sweden reinstated it in 2017, seven years after ending it and Morocco ended its mandatory draft in 2006 but reinstated it last year.

For an introduction on EU, much of Europe has gone away with compulsory military service, or made heavy cut-backs. The 28 NATO countries, 23 have full-time professional armies, and 21 of the 27 European Union nations have abolished the draft. Alongside Turkey, Germany remains the only major NATO country that still requires its young men to serve in the military. Conscription also still exists in Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Greece and Norway.

Figure 3

Source: CIA, CSS-ETH Zurich; Stand:2010

At 26 months, the longest required military service in Europe is on the island of Cyprus. Denmark's conscription seems by contrast to be impractically short, at just 4 months. Outside EU and NATO territories, compulsory service remains in Belarus, Macedonia, Moldova, Russia, Serbia, Switzerland and Ukraine. Many countries like Russia, experience difficulty finding enough recruits to fill their military. Another problem with getting rid of the draft is that professional armies are more expensive than those with conscripts. Yet most national armies in the EU have shrunk to leaner, professional armies, and these do carry several advantages. Professional soldiers are generally better trained, more specialized and far more efficient than conscripts. They are also easier to deploy on overseas missions.

Democratic context for the countries related to all three cases. Using Democracy Evaluation Toolkit. Use more of 9 tools

Russia and China are similar in terms of democracy and it determines government approach toward the military as an institution and how recruitment is done. The reason why all three deal with army recruitment differently has numerous reasons and one of them is related to the country’s democratic processes. Based on the World Democracy Index 2018 the United States holds 25th place with 7.96 and missing 0.5 points (8.1 and higher fall under full democracy) to be called a full democracy. China is 130th with the score 3.32. Russia is 144th with 2.94 points out of 10 and both considered are authoritarian regimes. Both China and Russia scored very low in all categories (e.g., electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties).

Figure 4

Source: http://bit.ly/31ZC4lY

While both Russia and China are not democratic, one of the differences is that China doesn’t claim to be a democracy, but rather a “socialist democracy” where the Communist Party acts in the best interest of the people (Wong 2018). The government claims that majority of population is not yet ready for a major effort towards democratization because economic growth and social stability remain more important factors compared to democratic rights such as freedom of speech, political participation, etc. (Wang 2007).

Table 1-A typology of democratic political regimes

	Competitive Elections	Inclusive Elections with High Integrity	Civil Liberties	Rule of Law
Minimalist Democracy	+
Electoral Democracy	+	+
Polyarchy	+	+	+
Liberal Democracy	+	+	+	+

In contrast, Russian constitution of 1993 classifies Russia as a democratic government since 1993 with all democratic freedoms in place. However, in reality it cannot be considered even what Møller and Skaaning (2013) call Minimalist Democracy with the minimum requirement is having competitive elections which Russia clearly doesn’t have. Needless to mention other categories such as inclusive elections, civil liberties, and rule of law. Never in current century, Russia demonstrated Ex Ante Uncertainty - the real possibility that incumbents can lose the election. It is also one of the requirements to be a minimalist democracy (Przeworski et. Al).

Some of the elements of democracy were emphasized by Dahl (1958) and Schmitter & Karl (1991): elected officials are chosen in frequent and fairly conducted elections; citizens have a right to express themselves without the danger of severe punishment on political matters; alternative sources of information exist and are protected by law (Comparing Democratic Systems lecture 03.14.2019). None of these elements fully exercised in Russia and China. The only few that are technically available would be: all adults have the right to vote in the election of officials - however since elections are rigged it doesn’t mean anything. Another aspect that exists is, practically all adults have the right to run for elective offices in the government – this works in Russia however, since elections are not fair, they will never be elected for high positions. In China people can feely run only for very small village size office.

One of the key points here is participation, or the degree of citizen involvement with politics and decision making. Citizen involvement with politics is not encouraged and most if not, all decision making about military and recruitment is done by close circle of government officials with the directions from the Presidents Putin and Xi. While in the U.S. in general there is a high civic engagement into politics and ability to shape public policies especially about such important topics like military recruitment. All decisions in Russia and China are made behind closed doors, while in the U.S. public has access not only to local city council meetings that they are encouraged to attend, but also to various congressional committees that is considered part of government transparency. In Russia and China mere mortals are not allowed to even approach official government buildings and civic participation is discouraged because the leaders supposedly make all the best decisions and they know what they are doing. High government officials are the elite who are supposed to be people’s servants but in reality, they are completely detached from the general public. They don’t have a mentality to serve people and act in the best interest of the country. Instead many of them serve themselves, their families, and their close circles.

One of the most important elements of the democracy is checks and balances. Politburo members in China and the President and his close circle in Russia do not have any authority over them. They control all other branches of government, while no one can control them. It gives President Putin and Xi freedom to exercise their power and approach the military related decisions. The U.S. framework is drastically different and divides the powers and responsibilities of the President and Congress in a way that the president doesn’t appropriate funds for the military and Congress controls the money to fund any actions coming from the president. For example, in 1970 when Nixon became president and wanted to fulfill his campaign promise and cancel the draft, but he faced the opposition to all-volunteer army from both the Department of Defense and Congress, so even Nixon wanted to push for it, he took no immediate action towards ending the draft early in his presidency.

Features of Case 1:US.

The United States is a federal republic and a constitutional representative democracy. The U.S. has the 3rd largest army in the world with1,347,300 active members after China and India. The U.S. has the largest budget over $643 billion. Figure 5

Figure 5

Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

Mandatory draft in the United States, was so far enforced only in five conflicts, the American Revolution, the American Civil War, World War I, World War II, and the Cold War (Korean War and the Vietnam War) (Holbrook 2001). Until 1973, during both peacetime and periods of conflict, men were drafted in the United States Armed Forces to make sure the numbers are met. The draft was finally ended when the United States Armed Forces moved to an all-volunteer military force. However, the Selective Service System still remains in place and all male citizens between the ages of 18 and 25 are required by law to register so that a draft can be readily resumed at any time based on the country’s needs (SSS Archive 2009). De facto, United States Federal Law also provides for the compulsory conscription of men between the ages of 17 and 45 and certain women for militia service pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution and 10 U.S. Code § 246 (Freeman 1971).

• Demographics. The size of the eligible population of young men reaching draft age each year was becoming large and the needs of the military were becoming relatively small so the draft was no longer universal.

• Cost. Obtaining enough volunteers appeared possible at acceptable budget levels the Department of Defense had.

• Moral and economic rationale. The draft has been debated for a long time, if state had a right to impose military service on young men without their consent. Liberals often argued that draft placed unfair burdens on the underprivileged members of society, who were less likely to get deferments.

• Opposition to the war in Vietnam. The growing unpopularity of the Vietnam war created the momentum that was ready for a change to volunteer force.

• The U.S. Army’s desire for change. (There is no strong desire to change for Russia). The Army lose confidence in the draft as discipline problems among draftees became a serious issue during Vietnam war.

These views were reinforced by the findings of the Gates Commission, set up in 1969 by President Nixon to advise him on establishing an all-volunteer force. The extensive research concluded that the U.S. interests would be better served by an all-volunteer force than by a combination of volunteers and conscripts like it is done in Russia (Griffin 1968). The research determines.

• Reasons why switch was possible in the U.S. The first is an agenda setting and attention from top leaders especially President Nixon. Second factor was the use of quantitative analysis to test, adjust, and evaluate future AVF policies. Well-designed research allowed to measure job performance and determine the best possible combination of the quality and cost. All these efforts government put in resulted in the professional military U.S. has today.

Similarity to all systems:

Third was the need to develop conditions that would attract the necessary type and adequate number of recruits. It was a challenging task for the U.S. military to attract high-quality candidates and highly effective marketing strategies and advertising programs were developed and used. The research prior to transition showed that the extensive list of incentives need to be offered: money for education, bonuses to enlist in certain occupations, enlistment tours of different lengths, develop career opportunities that had civilian relevance and many more benefits that did not exist during draft. The fourth factor was adequate financial resources and this is where China and especially Russia are behind. The U.S. defense budget needed to be large to support pay raises, to provide resources for advertising, recruiters, bonuses, educational benefits, to fund the military retirement, etc. (citation).

Conclusion on US: Critiques say that it is still too early to make a final judgment about AVF and indeed, it is and will always be a work in progress and no one can guarantee everlasting success in constantly changing world. However, based on the 30 years demonstrated that an AVF can be successfully sustained in the U.S. and conscription can be avoided.

Features of Case 2:China.

The primary organs of state power are the National People's Congress (NPC), the President, and the State Council. Four divisions, the legislative, executive, judiciary, and military, comprise the Communist Government of the People's Republic of China (Folsom and Minan, 1992). Chinese military ranks have the biggest army in the world with 2,183,000 active members. China's military budget for 2018 was $250 billion, constituting the world's second-largest military budget after the U.S.

Same as in the U.S. a conscription system is technically still employed in China today. However, mandatory military service has not been implemented since 1949. It is due to People's Liberation Army (PLA) ability to recruit enough people voluntarily. China remains one of the countries where universal military conscription has never been enforced however conscription is enshrined in Article 55 of the Constitution, which states: "It is a sacred duty of every citizen of the People's Republic of China to defend his or her motherland and resist invasion. It is an honoured Obligation of the citizens of the People's Republic of China to perform military service and to join the militia forces" (War Resisters' International 1998).

Similarity in all 3 cases:

Same as the U.S. and Russia, China is recognized as a nuclear weapons state, and is considered both a major regional military power and a potential military superpower (IISS Military Balance 2019).
The Chinese People's Volunteer Army (PVA) has become all-volunteer during Korean War.

Similarities in similar cases China and U.S.

In the late 1970s, Chinese government began altering its promotion practices that would reflect the new initiative - emphasis on professional competence. Previously, Chinese military did not have any retirement system in place, and junior and field-grade officers had very little or no opportunity for advancement (cite). This started a process to retire older officers, and to promote younger, and often better educated officers. In addition, new promotion standards were created that set minimum education levels for officers and emphasized the level of education as a criterion for promotion (somewhat similar to US efforts). .

Officers below the age of 40 were forced to receive a secondary-school education by 1990 or face demotion (while US needs to think how to recruit, China could make requirements harder because to problem to recruit due to large population).

Greater emphasis was created on formal training, higher education levels, and selection of more officers from technical units. Slowly by 1985 professional competence, education, and age became the criteria for demobilization as well as promotion. Promotion practices were based more and more on merit but still often based on personal connections – similar to Russia, different to US. Similar to the U.S.,China is trying to transform its military from a force dependent upon mass to a more information and technology-based military with highly-qualified officers and soldiers. This would never be possible with conscription. Attention was also focused on morale and welfare of the officers (similar to US, different than Russia), increase the education levels of members, and address corruption (attempts in Russia, no need to address corruption in US). As of 2005 candidates for the non-combatants units corps must at least have a high school education, specialized skills, and must take continuing education and training courses (China can afford to be picky with candidates while US needs to work hard to attract, the population creates different environment in China and many apply) Some of the NCOs will also take over technical and administrative positions customarily held by officers, within the PLA (Global Security Report 2018).

Power and Actors: Current administration and President Xi personally is driving all army policies. It is President Xi’s priority to give army jobs more prestige. There are claims that China underreports its budget and no one really knows what it is, but it is large. PLA is stronger than ever. Many cutting-edge weapons and platforms have been developed by the PLA over the past five years (Chen 2017). Due to its demographics, China can afford to further improve the quality of its recruits. One of the continuous priorities is to ensure a higher caliber intake by imposing tougher education criteria. As a result, a lower number of high school students will be recruited (it is harder to do in the U.S.) Now the focus is be on attracting current and recently graduated university students. As already mentioned, a big driver of this is the increasing technological sophistication of China’s military, especially across maritime, air, missile, cyber, and space. PLA can afford to look for a better force composition based on the recent efforts to improve prestige, etc., and its demographics(Ni 2018).

Features of Case 3: Russia.

The 1993 constitution declares Russia a democratic, federative, law-based state with a republican form of government. State power is divided among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Active military personnel numbers 1,013,628 with the budget $64 billion. Russia is the only country out of three discussed here where conscription is a 12-month mandatory draft for all male citizens age 18–27, with a few exceptions. The mandatory term of service was in 2007 from two years. Avoiding a draft is felony under Russian criminal code and can be punishable by up to 2 years of imprisonment (Russian Criminal Code 2007).Same as in China, the Soviet Conscription declared the military service holy duty of all male Soviet citizens in 1936. The conscripts were and still are normally sent to serve far away from their place of residence. Full-time students who graduated from civil university and had military education there, are free from conscription from 1 January 2008.

Culturally, different from U.S. and China:

The conscription is not the only way for the state to recruit enough people into the force but it has also become a very old tradition in every man’s life. The service supposed to be a school of life where physical and mental capabilities can be strengthened. It is not only a duty but a great honour to serve your country (Plaknov 2017). The European Parliamentary Research Service pointed out in a 2015 report, that there is a decrease in conscription and recruitment. In 2010, 35% of young men did not wish to be in the military and 70% said that hazing is the main reason why they want to avoid serving (Van Bladel 2010). Same research claims that degrading treatment, systematic and violent beatings, denial of medical care, and detrimental living conditions are well known. Often to escape torturous hazing, young constricts attempt suicide. Many try to stay in school until they are eligible to avoid draft at 27 or utilize all the resources they have to bribe doctors. Plaknov (2017) made a claim that Russia’s conscription policy is not really focused on the proper development of young Russian males, nor for the purpose of contributing towards global development and security.

While conscription was the only realistic option to provide enough manpower in the past, in the new context, a large conscription-based military makes much less sense than a smaller, but better trained, professional one. To be objective I want to mention that Russian government tried to reduce reliance on compulsory military service by recruiting more professional soldiers; however, demographic and financial constraints make that possibility highly unlikely. Even with continued conscription, Russian military remains constantly understaffed by one fifth. Another disadvantage of compulsory service is quality due to rapid turnover (Russel 2015).

As mentioned above, one of the biggest problems with recruiting is hazing. According to 2010 survey by government-funded pollsters Russian Public Opinion Research Centre (WCIOM), it was viewed as the armed forces' biggest problem. At least half of the potential intake, try to avoid service. Since the most qualified but fearful young men do all they can to avoid service, all military gets is the most unmotivated, often unhealthy and uneducated conscript force (Savic 2010).

Russia is known to rely on attrition warfare in which quantity is over quality. However, in today’s world this approach cannot be effective compared to China where a lot of reforms are aiming to attract better quality candidates with technical knowledge and higher education. Actors and Power: Taking into account authoritarian regime and President Putin’s personal military oversight, it looks like he needs to take different approach to recruitment and wellbeing of soldiers to keep up with China and the U.S. He once mentioned that addressing the issue of hazing is a key for developing the Armed Forces and also for increasing their alertness and social prestige. (Savic 2010).

Meanwhile, conscription, remains part of the Russian Armed Forces for various reasons, one of them is resistance from the military establishment, which remains strongly attached to the idea of military service as a cornerstone of the Russian armed forces since Tsarist times and financial constraints that make it impossible to have all-volunteer army like in China or the U.S.

With current conditions the number of conscripts keeps falling and the armed forces are now the smallest they have ever been in modern Russian history. Recruitment remains very difficult. Despite the government efforts to raise military salaries in 2012, it has been greatly eroded by inflation and the starting salary is now just two-thirds of the national average.

Institutional structure and actors and power: Doctors participate in selection process. Unlike in China and the U.S. there are built-in incentives for authorities to engage in conscription. For example, according to Resolution No. 436, the government awards regions that achieve or exceed the target draft numbers and the Defense Ministry issues annual bonuses to doctors from military medical commissions to those regions. While this resolution was designed to prevent corruption, now provides doctors with the incentive to send as many young men as they can regardless of their health- quantity is over quality still remains the goal.

Differences in Similar Systems. US and China:

In China and the U.S., the outcome is the same, both nations have all-volunteer army. While both countries have all volunteer army, the ways it is achieved are drastically different. For example, the U.S. is working really hard and investing into advertisement to boost the quality of recruits, provides better pay, benefits and training. China due to its large population has not much difficulty to get enough recruits and even able to make standards higher and higher(details). One of the reasons is demographics.

Similarities in Different Systems. Russia v/s US and China:

All have right to draft people and respective laws exist in all countries. All portray service as honourable civic duty. Government tries to make military professions prestigious and appealing by propaganda. All are similar in size.

I can talk about similarities between Russia and China in terms of political actors (presidents) and their unlimited power and that they personally initiate all military related decisions with no checks and balances. They are similarly not democratic. One of the similarities in different systems of Russia and China would be similar authoritarian regime and ability for high government officials not to listen to public opinion and corruption in military in Russia and China.

Why are they different and what are the differences in all three of them:

The approach is different in all three for various reasons. Demographic (large populations in China and US), economy(US is able to spend a lot more compared to Russia and China), cultural (Russians notion of WW2 still exists and the idea that another war can happen any time), historical (US never had a major war on its territory except civil war and Pearl Harbour attack, while more than half of casualties in WW2 were accounted by China and Soviet Union while the wars where the U.S. participated was always fought on foreign land.

Why all-voluntary army is possible in the U.S. and China but not in Russia.

Russia has been under international sanction since annexation of Crimea in 2014 and economy has suffered a lot with tremendous GDP drop in 2014.

Figure 6

Source: www.tradingeconomics.com/worldbank

As discussed above it is not possible to recruit and retain such high numbers to maintain all-volunteer military in the near future. Another reason is low population. However, there are many structural changes that do not require a lot of funding, but rather changes of policy and enforcement of new rules. Since hazing is considered as largest failing aspect in the military, it can be and should be properly addressed. Developed democratic countries do not have such problems.

Even though the main reasons might be mostly economical, some are also historical and institutional cultures are different. The notion that the army will provide the initiation and will make a man out of teenager still remains a legacy of the Soviet time. Due to strong recent propaganda, public support rose from 50 to 58 percent between 2015 and 2016, and currently remains at this level in 2017, according to independent pollster Levada Center.

In all systems, actors are approximately the same (e.g., Dept of Defense, high political officials,) outcomes are completely different. One of the reasons might be because they are different types of democracies. For example, the U.S. listens to the negative public opinion against mandatory service, while in China and Russia they really don’t and China doesn’t have a problem with recruitment only because of the population and fairly large budget. If needs are not filled, they will start draft as well because the Party needs it, no one would be able to protest or object. Same in Russia, service is portrayed as your civic duty and its ineffectiveness does not really matter. The decisions are made not in a democratic way because parliament reports to Putin and Xi and no one can vote against. In Russia, Defense Minister is Putin’s close friend who has held numerous high positions in his career. In short, public opinion about military recruitment in the U.S. is taken into account in Russia and China is not.

Cultural and institutional structures are completely different as well. In Russia those without military service are discriminated against and don’t have access to many jobs. For example, police and other government jobs only accepts applicants that underwent military service. For those who did not serve there are many restrictions in place. It might be difficult to get a driver license, move, and even receive or renew a passport but there is nothing like this in U.S. and China. In China, the academic year in high schools and universities begins with 2 weeks military training for male and female. Similar drills and physical exercises exist in Russia to prepare young man for the service. The legacy of war and invasion that can happen anytime is not as strong anymore compared to 30-40 years ago but it still exists. Both nations feel the need to prepare their population in case of the war. This strong legacy of being invaded and losing millions of citizens in the recent past; something that general population never experienced – connection to conscription in Russia.

Actors, Accountability and Power

All three have different levels of democracy. For Russian and Chinese presidents, army is one of the top priorities and they are personally involved and control all decisions. For example, President Putin in his message to the parliament (equivalent of state of the union address in the U.S.)personally presented new nuclear missiles and new military capabilities. Both President Putin and Xi enjoy old tradition of watch annual military show off parades with newest military inventions. To build a stronger military is not necessarily their national priority, but it is both the presidents’ personal ambition and their close circle priority because army is often a good business and both militaries are drowning in corruption. Main actors who drive all the changes in China and Russia are the presidents. Citizens have little or no control or influence to what government is going to do in terms of recruitment. While in the U.S. public opinion weighed more and unpopular policies can often be changed. In the U.S. congress would be involved in such decisions so that actors are different and they participate differently.

All power is concentrated in one or few hands. It connects to democracy. Russia, China are highly centralized, while the U.S. is less. Since elected bodies are only accountable to their superior officials, not to constituencies, it is deconcentration, not decentralization of power in Russian and China where at all levels of government there is only upward accountability. The actors involved in the decision making about recruitment and the power to create rules is stronger in the U.S., while in China and Russia the involvement of top leaders is inevitable at the stage of creating rules. High officials in Russia and China also participate in how resources and opportunities will be utilized. The department only has some autonomy in implementation/compliance part and adjudication of disputes (US has more on all). Extent to which political, economic, and administrative powers are decentralized and balanced also varies.

In the U.S. such decisions need to be made taking public opinion into account. Otherwise, it will cause election of the candidate who for example will suggest the cancelation of conscription in the U.S. So it is more downwardly accountable while other two presidents don’t have to be accountable to anyone. The decentralization was never a goal for Chinese and Russian government. Some decentralization could potentially have positive effect in better decision making and citizen having more voice in policies that will affect their or their children lives directly. However contextual challenges and current government structures in China and Russia are not designed in such way. Budgets are distributed top down with no participatory budgeting in place and the only bottom up approach is tax collection. For the administrative part, service delivery responsibility is usually delegated top to bottom and local government becomes primary implementor of services.

Conclusion

• What are the trends, patterns that emerge? While other countries are willing to offer alternative ways to serve and the U.S. is thinking about having male only service unconstitutional, Russian government does nothing to take into account numerous conscientious objections young people have.

• Recommendations: Democratic reforms, democracy tool kit. How to make it more adoptable to current technology conditions.

Works cited

Seeking Sanctuary: Draft Dodgers". CBC Digital Archives.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/23/fewer-than-a-third-of-countries-currently-have-a-military-draft-most-exclude-women/

Holbrook, Heber A. The Crisis Years: 1940 and 1941 Archived October 19, 2012, at the Wayback Machine, The Pacific Ship and Shore Historical Review, July 4, 2001. p. 2

Ralph H. Folsom, John H. Minan, Lee Ann Otto, Law and Politics in the People's Republic of China, West Publishing (St. Paul, 1992), pp. 76–77.

Russian Government web portal – Text of 1997 Federal Constitutional Law "On the Government of the Russian Federation" (in Russian))

http://www.levada.ru/2017/02/20/rossijskaya-armiya-2/

Wong, Alan (10 September 2018). )"Is China a democracy? A long (and better) answer".

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2675/792b4b3806af246ba811c9bfdfc13c3525a1.pdf

"Who Must Register" sss.gov. Archived from the original on May 7, 2009.

DW. (2019, May 15). Germany confirms, Syria still unsafe for asylum-seekers. DW. Retrieved from https://www.dw.com/en/germany-confirms-syria-still-unsafe-for-asylum-seekers/a-48742895

Freeman, Harrop A. (Spring 1971). "The Constitutionality of Direct Federal Military Conscription". Indiana Law Journal 46 (3): 345.

Thomas W. Evans (Summer 1993) "The All-Volunteer Army After Twenty Years: Recruiting in the Modern Era" Sam Houston State University Archived from the original on August 8, 2013.

Rostker, Bernard D., The Evolution of the All-Volunteer Force. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2006.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9195.html.

https://history.army.mil/html/books/030/30-18-1/cmhPub_30-18-1.pdf