[PzLdr]

I beg to differ. In the Revolutionary War, the bulk of the troops were militia.Everybody who could walk and shoot was enrolled in the militia. That's not a volunteer army The regular Army was a lot smaller. One of the problems facing our Congress was their innate distrust of professional, standing armies.

And I don't see the logic of your argument that a conscript Army is somehow cannon fodder, i.e, dumb. First, when we had a draft, the Army wasn't required to accept draftees for a variety of reasons. Second, I'll take all the smart draftees you give me. They can be trained to accomplish the mission. Thirdly, a largely conscript Army beat the Wehrmacht, which was hands down better trained, equipped and led than anybody we've fought since. And there's gonna come a time, and a foe [Russia, China, take your pick] when this light brigade crap ain't gonna cut it.

[Caesar Soze]

I beg to differ. In the Revolutionary War, the bulk of the troops were militia.Everybody who could walk and shoot was enrolled in the militia. That's not a volunteer army The regular Army was a lot smaller. One of the problems facing our Congress was their innate distrust of professional, standing armies.

The militia was undisciplined, even by pre-Steuben standards. In several engagements they proved to be terrible shots, or simply broke and ran. They were somewhat useful for harassing the flanks of the British and repressing local Tory sentiment, but for the most part, inadequate for maneuver warfare. Of course, a lot of their efficacy depended on which company-grade officers they elected and whether or not a drafted individual could hire a competent replacement.

The militia served its purpose, and its ethos is an important part of our Anglo-Saxon culture. But they are not a good model for a modern, worldwide, expeditionary Army. Or even a homeland defense force organized along military lines.