Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The ending of the draft was not really a positive consequence in the long run. It has made us more likely to get involved in future wars, less effective, and far more expensive. A smaller contracted professional army basically gives the government a free pass to send troops anywhere anytime. A draft is a huge deterrent against that since the average American has skin in the game. Had we drafted troops for Iraq, every college kid, criminal, and their mamas will be out on the streets protesting. A contracted army minimizes this element.
In terms of effectiveness, the benefit of a smaller professional army is offset by the lack of sufficient troop numbers. So to compensate, we hire hundreds of thousands of Pentagon contracting firms and private security guards. These contractors are far more expensive than drafting army troops to perform the same tasks. Under a draft, the army has their own cooks. Now the troops eat Chic-Fil-A and Chipotle. The costs multiply in virtually every facet. We gladly employ these outside firms since there is a profit element to it.
The draft also never really went away and can be reinstated in a heartbeat. Every American male is required to register with The Selective Service by age 18. This is essentially the draft board. If we ever had a gigantic conflict again requiring 2 million+ troops, the government would not hesitate to reinstate a draft in a heartbeat.
You realize that your last sentence is in conflict with your first paragraph, right?
The ending of the draft was not really a positive consequence in the long run. It has made us more likely to get involved in future wars, less effective, and far more expensive. A smaller contracted professional army basically gives the government a free pass to send troops anywhere anytime. A draft is a huge deterrent against that since the average American has skin in the game. Had we drafted troops for Iraq, every college kid, criminal, and their mamas will be out on the streets protesting. A contracted army minimizes this element.
Yes and that was one of the reasons Nixon supported the end of the draft. However, as you point out in the last paragraph...
Quote:
The draft also never really went away and can be reinstated in a heartbeat. Every American male is required to register with The Selective Service by age 18. This is essentially the draft board. If we ever had a gigantic conflict again requiring 2 million+ troops, the government would not hesitate to reinstate a draft in a heartbeat.
...the possibility still exists. So, that argument is somewhat nullified. We also have the force structure that we talked about where the military needs the reserves and guard to effectively operate which means there is certainly some degree of necessary "buy-in".
I would actually argue that the negative aspect has been the creation of a "warrior class".
Quote:
In terms of effectiveness, the benefit of a smaller professional army is offset by the lack of sufficient troop numbers. So to compensate, we hire hundreds of thousands of Pentagon contracting firms and private security guards. These contractors are far more expensive than drafting army troops to perform the same tasks. Under a draft, the army has their own cooks. Now the troops eat Chic-Fil-A and Chipotle. The costs multiply in virtually every facet. We gladly employ these outside firms since there is a profit element to it.
There is a lot of work currently being done to determine exactly what is more cost-effective. The DoD produces an equivalency chart that currently shows that the contractors are more cost-effective. However, if you think the Army doesn't have their own cooks, then you've never talked to a 92G...
I don't know about the Army, but in the Air Force the blue-suited "Food Specialist" (actually, a "Services Specialist" is intended to progress to a manager of civilian contract employees.
I don't know about the Army, but in the Air Force the blue-suited "Food Specialist" (actually, a "Services Specialist" is intended to progress to a manager of civilian contract employees.
...and there is nothing wrong with that. I don't see the negatives of hiring contractors to slop chow and perform other menial tasks versus using enlisted soldiers. Between pay, training investment, equipment, housing, food, healthcare, etc. there is a solid argument to hire contractors. Hell, my private sector company hires contractors to run our cafeteria because it's way cheaper than doing it ourselves.
Laos, Cambodia and maybe Thailand and Burma would have fallen to Communism. If it had just stayed with Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam they all would have moved away from Communism about 1980 or so. Communism never worked and like we see now in those countries they are moving towards a more free market economy and eventually Democratic government.
You realize that your last sentence is in conflict with your first paragraph, right?
Yes, but doesn't that apply both ways? If NJGoat can argue the positives of not having a draft, than can I argue the counter?
Most Americans have been brainwashed into believing that the draft ceased to exist post-Vietnam, yet nothing really changed compared to previous times after Korea, WW2, and WW1. In peacetime, the draft ends and we go back to a professional contracted army. The difference now is that we fought 2 major wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) without reinstating the draft.
Last edited by Nolefan34; 01-25-2016 at 09:05 PM..
Yes, but doesn't that apply both ways? If NJGoat can argue the positives of not having a draft, than can I argue the counter?
Most Americans have been brainwashed into believing that the draft ceased to exist post-Vietnam, yet nothing really changed compared to previous times after Korea, WW2, and WW1. In peacetime, the draft ends and we go back to a professional contracted army. The difference now is that we fought 2 major wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) without reinstating the draft.
While the number of conscripts was dropped in the post WWII and Korean War years there still were young men forced into service, most noticeably Elvis Presley at the beginning of his fame. Post Vietnam the system was scraped until President Carter had to do something besides boycott the Olympics when the Soviet Union rolled into Afghanistan.
The question becomes how major we are going to consider Iraq and Afghanistan. Long term yes, but from the beginning President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld tried to keep it small. Perhaps like a similar sized intentional Spanish American War and suprise you also have a Philippines Insurrection which were fought without conscription
While the number of conscripts was dropped in the post WWII and Korean War years there still were young men forced into service, most noticeably Elvis Presley at the beginning of his fame. Post Vietnam the system was scraped until President Carter had to do something besides boycott the Olympics when the Soviet Union rolled into Afghanistan.
The question becomes how major we are going to consider Iraq and Afghanistan. Long term yes, but from the beginning President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld tried to keep it small. Perhaps like a similar sized intentional Spanish American War and suprise you also have a Philippines Insurrection which were fought without conscription
The Iraq war would have been a cake walk had it not been for the Sunni-Shia religious war going on. That was the big miscalculation. You don't step into a situation where you are going to be in the middle between to warring religious armies / parties. You don't step into the War of 30 years in Germany / Europe 1618-48 either. You wait by the side until one party declares victory and then congratulate them...
While the number of conscripts was dropped in the post WWII and Korean War years there still were young men forced into service, most noticeably Elvis Presley at the beginning of his fame. Post Vietnam the system was scraped until President Carter had to do something besides boycott the Olympics when the Soviet Union rolled into Afghanistan.
The question becomes how major we are going to consider Iraq and Afghanistan. Long term yes, but from the beginning President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld tried to keep it small. Perhaps like a similar sized intentional Spanish American War and suprise you also have a Philippines Insurrection which were fought without conscription
President Carter (nor any President since) never drafted anybody.
President Carter (nor any President since) never drafted anybody.
Carter re-instated draft registration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
