If an army has to resort to the draft, does that army deserve to lose?

Answer 1

"No nation has the inherent right to survive through the use of conscript troops, and, in the long run, no nation ever has."-Robert A. Heinlein. I spent 20 years in the military, and I've worked with draftees, they were rarely worth the trouble. Modern warfare requires too much commitment and dedication to be trusted to people who care nothing about the mission, their fellow troops, or their country. If everyone who supports the draft would simply enlist, then the draft would be un-necessary, if what they want is for other people to have to go so they can stay safe at home, then they are no different from the people they decry.

Answer 2

The Army doesn't decide on whether or not we institute Compulsory Military Service under The Selective Service System that all male U.S. citizens have to register with at age 18. Congress decides that.

Answer 3

No. If an army has to resort to the draft, that means that the nation has become decadent, with cowardly citizens and a youth who art willing to risk themselves to protect their nation and way of life.

Answer 4

The army doesn't draft, the country does.
So, you're saying that if we (the Democrats) revive the draft, then we should never send the army because we're just going to lose anyway. So, we may as well be the French, and just give up.

Answer 5

No, but instead of the draft, why not have mandatory military service for EVERYONE for two years between the ages of 18 and 20. This would eliminat the need for a draft, it would giv us a huge reserve in times of crisis that were fairly recently trained, and it would eliminate the fight or pay system we have now, where the poor fight and the rich pay to keep their children out of harms way. For those who disagree with mandatory service, what is wrong with putting in time for your countrpy for two years? Maybe we should tie it in to voting, no service, no vote. The system would have to be set up so that no one gets preference based on anything but merit and aptitude. The British learned the hard way that pputting the wealthy in charge of the military but not fighting for it led to low moral, dissatisfaction among the troops, bad strategic decisions and eventually, defeat.

Answer 6

No, No, No!
I the US had to re-institute the draft, it would simply be because the military was either deployed to too many areas, or the military is too small to support the mission.
An idea that is better than the draft, would be mandatory service upon turning age eighteen. There are several countries that do this.
The military that deserves to loose is the one that does not put up a valiant fight.

Answer 7

I would have to agree with Foundryman, Even being a soldier, everyone should have a mandatory military obligation. I mean think about it, you live here for the freedom, the rights that are taken for grated, and you don't want to defend them ? If you don't want to defend the country you are living in....the get the hell out.

Answer 8

No, but any people who refuse to defend their own country, without having to be drafted, deserve to lose it.

Answer 9

All countries must have a draft in emergencies. It's a citizens duty to fight for his country when needed. This is taken for granted everywhere.
I don't follow your line of reasoning at all. Are you saying that we should have lost the second world war because we drafted most of the fighters ?

Answer 10

No, but an army that defaults on it's original contracts with its soldiers by re-deploying them after re-deploying them deserves to lose.

By the way, it is never the soldiers who lose a war, although they may lose their lives, they are the heros.

It is the generals and the commander-in-chief that are the losers, and the country that voted in the commander-in-chief.

.