Reply #17: I also agree, for if we had the Draft we be out of Iraq and Afghanistan

[happyslug]

People tend to forget that as long as the Majority of Americans supported the War in Vietnam, the Draftee army we sent in did an excellent job. The US Army from 1964-1968 was the best army the US Army ever fielded. While today's army has more high school graduates then the army from 1964-1968 that is more do to a refusal to take in non-high school graduates since the 1970s then any increase in the intelligence of the recruits. Everyone today has more education then their parents did (And this has been true since the Civil War). One of the comparison between the Armies of WWI and WWII was that the WWI draftees overwhelming did NOT have a High School Diploma while the WWII draftees did graduate High School. Thus the difference in education is more a reflection of out society as a whole then any improvement in the quality of the recruits.

The problem with the Draftee army started in 1968, as the Majority of Americans came to oppose the war. With that opposition the Draftee army brought in with it that opposition and you saw a steady decline in Army (by 1973 it was hopelessly broke do to that fact the recruits had deteriorated that badly mostly do to the increased opposition to the war). To minimize this Nixon wanted to go to a mercenary army, one less affected by domestic politics (He called in an all Volunteer army but it is a mercenary army, one raised to fight for pay nothing else). The main advantage of such a Mercenary army is that opposition at home leads to a drop in enlistments (And over quality of the enlistees) but that opposition stays out of the Military and thus you still have an Army that can fight if ordered (Unlike a Universal Military Service Army that will only fight if the people want it to fight). Right wing propaganda says such an All-Volunteer army is superior for it recruits only people who want to fight. That is true as to who enlists, but against an Universal Military Service Army that is motivated (Such as the US army from 1964-1968) it will lose, for it lacks the same quality and quantity of personal (The draft not only brings into the Army the poor, but also the best and brightest who would NOT tend to enlist but once in tend to make the army more productive).

Thus a Universal Military Army is the best army if the Country is behind what such an Army is doing. On the other hand if the country ever opposes what the army does, it deteriorates rapidly. On the other hand Mercenary armies are never as good as a Universal Military Army (Provided the supplies and equipment are similar, you can NOT compare what the US Calvary did to the Indians when the US Calvary had modern weapons and cannons and the Indians had neither for example, when the equipment were similar the Native Americans defeated the Army such as the Little Big Horn and Fetterman's Massacre but other colonial wars often had machine guns against spears which is NOT a good test of the two types of armies), but Mercenary Armies retain an ability to fight, as long as they are paid, even as internal opposition to the war increases.

Just look at Vietnam and the present war. The US did well between 1964-1968 as the internal situation in Vietnam deteriorated. When the Majority of Americans opposed the war the US Army went into a tailspin and the US was out of the War by 1972 (for all practical purposes, no actual peace treaty till the beginning of 1973). That is a period of only four years of opposition to the War (Eight years overall but remember most Americans Supported the war till the middle of 1968). On the other hand we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan for longer then the overall time period of US Troops in Vietnam and during that whole time period the majority of Americans have opposed this war, but our mercenary army is still fighting it. This is the danger of a Mercenary Army, its ability to continue to fight as long as it is paid. A Universal Service Army will continue to fight even if its pay to reduced to zero for several years (such as the Viet Cong during the Vietnam war) as long as the majority of the people support it.

For BOTH reasons I support a universal Military Service Army, first it is hard to be used in a war that in unpopular at home, but it is also will stay effective if such support exists AND there is no money to pay for troops. Such an army would be useless in Iraq and Afghanistan, but our Mercenary army is NOT winning those wars either (In Iraq we ended up buying off the opposition, something we can't do in Afghanistan and the Mountain areas of Pakistan). It is still fighting for it is still being paid, but is this in the best interest of the US? The answer is no, we would be better off being kicked out like we were in Vietnam then continue to fight a war we can NOT win.