So what exactly is the logic behind not having a draft?

Question

are we saying that the soldiers from wars where there was a draft were soooo bad for the military that if we would have had all volunteer soldiers in those wars, that we would have won those wars? For example, is the argument basically, if we would have had an all volunteer military in Vietnam, we would have won Vietnam?

Wingshooter where as I respect your patriotism...historically and world opinion is that Vietnam was a loss for us and in t he end that trumps the minority view that we won that war.

Rhsaunder...The main infantry weapons of the soldier in Vietnam are basically the same as now. The M16 is still the M16 with little adaptation, the M60 has been replaced by the SAW. Are you saying that the avg American is so dumb that they can't be taught how to shoot a rifle, despite half of our country are armed recreation shooters? C'mon...do better than that!

Fredonia, I think the generals and soldiers in iraq would beg to differ. From what I have been hearing they say they could use all the help they can get. In Afghanistan our generals are complaining they don't have enough U.S. troops since the U.N forces there refuse to locate to front line positions.

So Fredonia, in your opinion, if American soldiers need help in Afghanistan your answer is, oh well, that's the UN's job. How partiotic of you, I bet you have at least 5 support the troops flags on the back of your SUV. :-)

Answer 1

You are grossly oversimplifying a very complex issue. Having been on active duty from '72 (the tail end of Nam) to '92 (the end of Desert Storm) I've worked with both draftees and all-volunteer personnel. My experience is that we would be better off without the draftees because, since they don't want to be there, they won't have the commitment and dedication we need in modern warfare. Would you honestly want to trust your life and country to someone who cared about neither? In Nam there was an ongoing problem with draftees killing their own non-Com's and officers, the V.C. were not who they considered the enemy, the people who dragged them to a foreign country and stuck them in a conflict of which they wanted no part were the enemy. As things now stand, we at least have people who have chosen to serve, and are willing to give their all, that is what U.S. military service is supposed to be.

Answer 2

not having a draft is a political question and therefore without logic. The draft being abolished is connected with the War Powers Act and the fact the President can use military action without declaring war. What used to be black and white up to WW2 (e.g. We only are at war when Congress declares it) is no longer the case.

Under old law, everytime the President went to war without Congressional approval there would be a draft as seen with the Korean War. This was considered unfair since conscription was contingent on congressional approve. Since Congress never declared war on North Vietnam it was argued the draft was illegal...and blah blah blah...read the history behind it and it makes political sense.

But still there is absolutely no logic behind it. And the argument is not we would have won the war if we had an all volunteer military. I think it is more we would have won the war if congress had declared war and then enacted a draft.

But in this case, this is purely opinion...so don't take my word as if it were from the wise man on the hill.

Answer 3

It depends on the nature of the fight. This is basically a single theater war, with two fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan, so we don't need a huge pool of troops like we did in WWII. The Army wasn't gutted like it was before Korea or WWI, and we aren't waging a huge cold war at the same time like we were during Vietnam. You have to reach a happy medium, because the less troops you have, the better training they recieve, the higher their morale, the more technologically advanced they will be. Of course, you don't want the force too small, or you end up with a situation like they had in the movie 300.

Answer 4

A volunteer army has higher morale, because none of them were forced there. They're also more likely to be "fit for combat," but that doesn't mean drafted units aren't effective.

We lost Vietnam because it stopped being a military conflict and started being a political one. If a military can win a war, we would have done it in Vietnam, and would be doing it in Iraq. At some point, however, both wars became about whether or not the country we were/are propping up will stand up for itself and fight. We can't hold em up forever

Answer 5

The draft was abolished by the Nixon administration because in reviewing its effect on society during the Vietnam Conflict, it was found to be too ruinous. A draft isn't truly egalitarian in American society; there's just no way unless you impose the sort of harsh compliance that sees Israel and Switzerland turn every able-bodied male into a combatant. Hence, it tends to hit the middle class and the poor hardest, with an exemption for the wealthy. A case in point, is that during the First World War, 1 in 20 artillery officers was from Yale; a century later, less than a dozen Yalies serve in the entire military.

An all-volunteer military is much easier to train; you don't have the same sort of compliance issues that result in abuse of personnel throughout all ranks. With the new "politically correct" training and discipline standards, it would be next to impossible to enforce compliance. Things are bad enough now without taking the worst that American society has to offer and throwing them into the ranks, armed, into the midst of combat (or other Americans). The weapons are not the same; M16A1s in Vietnam didn't have ACOG close combat optics and IR laser pointing devices like M4s now, for instance. Advances in technology mean communications are far different. So are the skill sets. Today's American fighting man has to not only understand whatever skill level he is trained for in his MOS, all the equipment that he needs to maintain and he may face in the hands of the enemy, but the Laws of Land Warfare flawlessly; every regulation and directive regarding everything from how to spot and seek treatment for PTSD to maintaining Equal Opportunity in the ranks. You do not just throw people off the street into a uniform and develop these skill sets and knowledge overnight. It takes a minumum of two years to get someone fully upto speed where not only can they handle these tasks and more, but are finally ready for the next step in leadership.

The argument is not "If we had an all-volunteer military, we would have won Vietnam". The argument should be "If we spent more than 4% of the Federal Budget on Defense, and expanded the military beyond 5% of the able-bodied population, what would that mean?" The numbers may be detrimentally low (especially foxhole strength) but the question should be resolved by bringing more troops from technical and support jobs into the field as combatants, without raising overall end strength.

A draft will require a fundamental shift in American consciousness that it may no longer be capable of. Patriotism and personal sacrifice are nowhere near Second World War levels. The alienation of the American people from their government at all levels is almost complete. The cynicism and refusal to contribute to society (drug abuse, child abuse, white collar crime, etc etc ad nauseum) is a virtual guarantee you won't get the sort of public involvement in a draft drive where the faith of the people in government is negligible. Throw a draft into the works with such a society and you will have nothing but inequity and abuse.

Or you can throw money and men at the problem like the Russians or the Chinese, and consider severe losses to both entirely acceptable. American society is too open for such tactics to function. Think of other solutions, like a coherent foreign policy, rather than a draft. Or expect some sort of public service in the Swiss, Swedish, or Israeli models even at the cost of individual liberty. These choices aren't mutually exclusive, but the need for them may come to the fore someday soon.

Answer 6

We don't need a draft right now. The enlistment and re-enlistment numbers are quite good.

*****************************************************************
My husband is in the U.S. army with multiple Iraq deployments under his belt. He does not "beg to differ". The difference is, you're going on what you "hear", I'm going on what is known.

I haven't read anything about American Generals needing more troops in Afghanistan. (I read the army early bird every day and if it would be anywhere... it would be there.) Although, if I've missed that and they do need more troops in Afghanistan.. that's something NATO and The UN need to address, not answered by having a draft in the U.S.
*******************************
I came back to see how others answered and see you're still fascinated with me.

I find it odd that you continue to attack only me simply because I stated that the draft wasn't needed because enlistment and re-enlistment numbers are still good. Very strange to get so upset over such a benign statement.

Just an FYI, I don't drive an SUV and I have no "Support Our Troops" magnets on my car. Actually, I volunteer over 100 hours a month for ACS, Red Cross, and AFTB (if you even know what those are, which you probably don't). I also have a part time job working for a non-profit for military connected children. In addition to that, I've been an FRG leader twice (during Iraq deployments). Most recently, I spearheaded a campaign in my area to collect desperately needed clothing and toiletries to send to the soldiers at WRAMC. My patriotism isn't in question.

Still though, very odd that you are attacking me and going off on these bizarre tangents. Especially, when I didn't choose to go the low route with you.

It takes a small man to talk big words over the internet to people he knows nothing about. Especially, when you single out the lone woman answerer. Coincidence? Perhaps. However, there was nothing in my answer that deserved such wrath.

I'll take this as a lesson learned and avoid you from now on.

One can only assume based upon your strange ramblings and personal attacks that you are an egocentric mysogynist.

Good luck to you.

Answer 7

The nature of warfare has changed. In olden days, war was waged by people who needed to know little more than how to carry a rifle and shoot it. That is no longer the case; modern weapons require considerable skill both to use and maintain, and you cannot get skilled people to do that just by dragging them in off the street for a couple of years: they have to be hired, trained, and retained, and paid what they are worth.

Answer 8

Because we have chosen an army of long-serving professional warriers over a mass conscript army.

Answer 9

What makes you think we didn't win in Nam? Soliders had nothing to do with the eventual outcome of that war...politics did....and teh way the democrats handled it..i.e. Johnson and McNamara!

Answer 10

Because if we had a draft no one would want to go to war.