“When the Draft Calls Ended” succinct summary of the draft, Air Force Magazine.

[jody]

Nothing to cite, the entire article is well-written and appears to be historically correct.

When the Draft Calls Ended

[shrdlu]

1. Link failed...

...please repost. I'd like to read the article. Thanks.

[mth44sc]

2. try there

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/April%202008/0408draft.aspx

[shrdlu]

3. That worked. Thanks.

[jody]

5. I used the link again and it worked. n/t

[TahitiNut]

4. The article is written with bias, presenting a slightly one-sided perspective.

For example, it states that the draft wasn't consistent with "American tradition" where the draft was only used during wars like the Civil War and WW1. What it DOESN'T say is that it was "American tradition" to maintain a global military force with bases in over 100 countries and and "little wars" one after another. It talks about the "hidden tax" of burdening the draftees with the "cost" of the war disproportionally, where those not drafted skate ... but it doesn't talk about the "promises" to veterans that have been given short shrift or violated altogether. It alludes to Sam Nunn's opposition to the All-Volunteer Force but offers nothing regarding why. It talks about the "inherent unfairness" but emphasizes the pre-lottery draft and doesn't mention "male-only" as part of the unfairness - and unfairness yet to be corrected.

It alos talks about the (alleged) low effectiveness of drafting and training folks for merely 2 years, claiming that only volunteers could be used in high-skilled positions - and IGNORES the fact that many high-skill MOSs were predominantly draftees ... such as MINE. (Computer programming.) The fact of the matter is that the draft WAS effective and cost-efficient ... and sure as hell made folks understand that they had a direct stake in the behavior of out government. (That's "effective" in was that are invaluable, imho.)

I tire of the "me first" attitudes that perpetuate the idea of government as "them".

[jody]

6. Historians always disagree on the interpretation of facts however the article is a concise history

of the draft with relevant stats.

It's a quick read for anyone interested in the draft and that's why I posted it.

Have a good day. :hi: