So about there maybe being a draft...

[Preechr]

You guys are smarting yourselves stupid on this.

It's not so complex.

Q.- Is there a plan for a draft?

A.- No. During WWII the draft seemed to work because of the uniquely Nationalistic nature of that era's people, both at home and in the field. The whole country pulled together and sacrificed together for an unquestioned greater good.

This was not the experience of Vietnam. The draft was resented and feared. Conscription helped to embitter the country against the war, and the effectiveness of the military suffered greatly which directly increased the risks to our soldiers. Some soldiers died in Vietnam because of the draft, which was in unacceptable.

Since then, the military has been restructured into an all-volunteer force where the individual soldier's training emphasizes the voluntary nature of her service, focusing on her natural skills. The effectiveness of our fighting force, which is to say it's overall quality, is higher than it was during WWII without relying on an enthusiastic populace back home.

There's no way they'd reintroduce the draft because they've developed a much more stable system.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Preechr

There's no way they'd reintroduce the draft because they've developed a much more stable system.

No, they won't reintroduce the draft, because like you already said, it would turn political favor against them, and leave W with a bad tasting legacy in his mouth.

But to call this system "stable" is a bit of a stretch. And speaking of stretching things, that's what's getting done to our reservists and full-time soldiers. We can't reinstitute a draft, so Bush will stretch out every drop of blood and sweat he can get from the saps who volunteered to do this.

"Who will serve?" Well, nobody will if the military developes a reputation for being careless with its reserves, sort of like the Michigan National Guard, who were sent over to Iraq with 48 hours notice, with no training.

I'll repeat myself-- it's a question of allocation. Having a voluntary army of really skillled soldiers who do it out of duty and love is great, but that leaves you with a logistical question. To draft, or not to draft? That is the question. It's not about stability. If our nation desired stability, we'd have enough troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea (with a few extra in your back pocket for Iran). But the bottom line is that we don't have those resources.

Again, to me, this discussion has become about apples and oranges. We have a great military, and sure, the best military is the voluntary one that comes from within your own people. Machiavelli believed that. But I don't think Machiavelli had the imagination to envision a multi-front war in foreign lands, while at the same time lacking adequate troops. That's not "Imperialism," or "militarism," that's just plain stupid.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

A 2002 Harvard Institute of Politics survey of college students found that if their number came up in a new draft, 25% would eagerly serve and 28% would serve with reservations.

Right, because a bunch of fucking college students will get put in more "professional" military roles, or end up in the coast guard, or go join AmeriCorps or USA FreedomCorps., etc.

National service has never been an issue for the youth of America. I did it, many others have done it. MILITARY service, with guns, in IRAQ or IRAN, might be a different question....