What if US army was not voluntered?

Germaniac

Donor
That is not the purpose of the Army.

The Army is there to protect and defend the nation and its interests abroad, not to carry out social engineering.

That not what he is saying, he is trying to say (in more correct terms) all the suburban white kids who are able to deal with college bills themselves(i was one myself) who never in there right minds would want to go fight in a war, hell never even fire a gun, would be in the armed forces as well... instead all levels of the social scale would be represented.

I still dont think thats an adequate reason. I like it the way it is now, there if we need it, but Im not going to Iraq anytime soon (im fine with the status quo)
 
Oh God, I remember that. No one told me about that until I was after 18 and I freaked out because it has something like a 60 day limit before you can get fined thousands and/or arrested.
It is pretty lenient though. If you haven't heard of the service or didn't know about it, you can register until you're like 24. So I think Selective Service is like the Hippie teacher of the government world. It's gotta obey the rules, but mostly just to keep face and it doesn't really care.

You're right, they don't even care. Reagan tried to go after a couple people who didn't sign up (and publicly said so), but there was some pretty nasty blowback, so they pretty much ignore non-enrollees nowadays. I did it because I got my drivers license on my 18th birthday so they sort of went "hey, why not do this thing now?" and because I'm getting VA benefits via my dad, so I kinda figured...you know...probably best to do it!

To be fair, a conscript army doesn't *need* to take *everyone* of age, so you can get some of the benefits of a professional force (relatively low equipment requirements) combined with some of the benefits of a conscript force (cheap manpower).
 
What if US didn't had abolished in the 70's the national service (Russia and China still have) what the impact ?

The big question is "Why would anyone want to keep the national service?". Firstly the US simply didn't need all 18 year old males. Secondly Vietnam (or the Marines) showed that motivated and skilled soldiers were far better than reluctant uneducated soldiers. Thirdly the US military have always (alt least this side of year 1900) been an expeditionary force to be used in West Germany, South Korea or Kuwait rather than defending Detroit or Houston. All these factors (and many more) are strong arguments for replacing the draft with a volunteer system.

A draft system would be seen as unfair (university students would be excempted), a tax on the poor (1-2 years during which time the drafted couldn't work and earn money) and expensive (the draftees would cost tax money and not pay any tax during the draft period). Libertarians would be far stronger, youth protests would have something clear to protest against and draft dodging would become something of a national sport.

Military there would be a divide between volounteer units (Marines, Special Forces, some Army units) and drafted units (the rest). Since more and more high-tech equipment would be added more long-term experts would be needed.

But that is very unlikely for the reasons I wrote above.
 

pnyckqx

Banned
That is not the purpose of the Army.

The Army is there to protect and defend the nation and its interests abroad, not to carry out social engineering.
i need to put my 2 cents in here just a bit. Much of what the military is doing today is social engineering, and it is ruining combat effectiveness. i agree with you.

On the other hand, a lot of what was perceived as social engineering (such as integration of the armed forces in 1947) was actually a more efficient system. Separate facilities and command structures was just a drain on resources that could have been spent on better material. Truman recognized it, and acted on it.

One thing that we all seem to forget is that Desert Storm was an exception to the rule. Future conflicts are going to be low intensity conflict. Insurgency wars if you prefer. The reason for that is simple: Nobody is crazy enough to take us on in a conventional war. Saddam Hussein wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. That's why he tried to fight a conventional war.

Some amount of 'social engineering' is required to deal with such conflicts. If you go in and kill people wantonly, you're going to make more insurgents. That's just a fact. Since the American people don't have the will to do what it takes to win an insurgency war --think of Sherman's doctrine of total war, utter brutality and maximum destruction-- we have to adapt.

As for draftee units, if properly trained, they can fight as well as volunteer units. Read David Hackworth's Steel My Soldier's Hearts, which is an account of his command of 4/39th infantry, a draftee unit.

In the 5 months he commanded that battalion, Hackworth transformed it from the worst unit in Vietnam, to the best unit in Vietnam according to General Creighton Abrams. Hackworth achieved the battalion's 100:1 enemy to US kill ratio by adapting the Viet Cong's tactics and beating them at their own game. Social Engineering? Or was it just efficient use of force?

Never underestimate the will to survive in the draftee soldier. That was the key to Col. Hackworth's success. Those guys wanted to live to make it home, and being the best at what they did was the best chance of that happening.

Another issue that Hackworth consistently brought up was that a draftee doesn't have a career to protect. He is more inclined to tell somebody the truth without the sugar coating. You're going to get a more honest appraisal from the draftee.

Now i do NOT advocate the return of the draft, but we need the honesty that the draftees provided in order to make our military a better military.
 
Top