Replies

Interesting, especially the take on how it now requires significantly longer to turn out a combat-ready soldier, because of the "skills" that have to be learned, compared to WWII days.

I to have worked with draftees and and the current crop of professional soliders.

There is a difference a draftee is 2 years and out, a professional is there cause wants to be, whether for 2 years 3 or 4 years.

Thats the difference, even as a 1st termer you are expected to act as a professional cause that is your duty.

Attitude is the key.

A draftee Army was never worth a damn, "greatest generation?" aside.

Draftees will and always have made lousy troops.

Before we talk about a draft, we need to look at how recruiting has changed since the beginning of the Bush administration and since 9/11/01. If both events led to an increase in volunteers, then the problem is largely solving itself, and we don't need to force new people into the services. If we are committed enough to declare war and still need soldiers, then we can look into a draft.

I don't think we could ever start the draft again because of the social problems that it would raise. When we last had a draft, society largely acknowledged that homosexuality was wrong. Men who had this problem and were called to serve generally fought it and tried to live as heterosexuals during their time in the service. Today, they would try to continue being openly and actively homosexual. Some would try to use their homosexuality to avoid service while others would try to use it to force the services to allow homosexuals to serve openly.

We would have similar problems with how to handle women. We once saw men and women as people would be someday be partners in a traditional marriage. The man being drafted to defend his country was also defending the woman who would someday be his wife even if he didn't know her yet. The time during which he served was not time during which she would be at home building an advantage that she could use to beat him in the job market when he returned. Likewise, the educational benefits that he received for his service were not seen as opportunities denied to her because she would benefit from his opportunities when they married. Today, men and woman are more adversaries and less partners. Being drafted would have different effects in different situations, but it wouldn't be "equal." Our society's preoccupation with "equality" would make handling the situation difficult.

I don't think we should use the draft as a form of social engineering. I've heard people on both the left and the right suggesting that the draft would be a wonderful way to force their values on society. I think using it for this purpose is a big mistake. I write about all of this in much more detail at Peacetime Draft, Bad Idea. I realize that we are not exactly discussing a peacetime draft in this thread, but many of the problems are the same.

WFTR
Bill

I agree with the Colonel. Having served 22 years, I can tell ya what a big headache having draftees would be. I rather have volunteers. We can make it, given the size of our nation, and the high technology of our armed forces, without a draft. For this country, drafts went out with the frontal charge and the propeller fighter.

The real issue for this article, is, however, as the author cited, the subtle way a draft would (hopefully--for the Wash Post) cause everyone to put the brakes on going into Iraq and taking out Saddam Hussein. The Wash Post wants to see protests like we had in the '60's.

You don't need a draft you can just increase the age of eligibility. Right now it 34 or something like that. Move that to 45 and start an advertising campaign on how the armed forces need people you will get enough americans who know what their duty is and will be willing to sacrifice their lifestyle to do it.