The High-Tech Case For Bringing Back The Draft

io9 ^ | April 3, 2014 | Mark Strauss

[norton]

Mixed emotions:

The draft was far from being fair but it was a wide net that did bring together men from all walks and all levels of skill, smarts, culture, and patriotism.
For better and for worse.

The volunteer forces require commitment from the get-go and should be sure to draw only those who intend to make good at it.
Some for better and some for worse.

A conscripted military can either bring the home front together in support, as in WW2, or engender a sizeable anti-war movement as during Vietnam.

From everything we've seen since 9/11 it's clear that the volunteers are capable forces, but in the government's eye, they are assets to be driven until the wheels fall off.

Despite the apparent high quality of today's troops I'm confident that Rangle and his progressive allies are posturing about a draft because their supporters think that it would somehow equalize risk between the classes.
How often have we heard that so & so's kid didn't have to go to war but some poor kid joined up for the education benefits or for a decent salary?

(Yet during the sixties those same democrats screamed about inequities in the draft system.)

Finally, a quote:

"...it's nice to be wanted. But the people that Allenby and Hagerott want to enlist for national security are the same ones who are valued in civilian society as key drivers of economic growth."

(IIRC that's where most company grade officers, the RAF, OSS / spooks, code breakers, and assorted other heroes, came from during WW2.)

"Scooping up these innovators in the net of universal conscription would make the hard-sell of reinstating the draft even harder."

(See above regarding class warfare...the elitism of the entire article is self evident.)