Someone mentioned selective service. If they meant that a draft of sorts would be beneficial I have to disagree. Ive talked to many old salts and they all agree that during Vietnam and for a short time after their Navy was in ruins do to the large numbers of personnel that either did drugs or had none of the qualities of a sailor (honor, courage, commitment). One vet made the analogy that it was like the Navy had a stroke of sorts. It took time to recover and weed out the problems, but overall it came back stronger and better. I personally would leave the military as soon as soon as possible knowing that I had to serve with others that had no respect toward their job or had none of the many reasons that servicemen and woman serve their country. Servicemen and women's lives are already dangerous and tasking enough without screwups adding to their problems.
There was a draft in place between 1948 and 1973 (not to mention 40-45). The Vietnam experience was part of that time period -- a limited part -- with plenty of issues all its own not directly related to the draft. The military was part of a society in general that went though the "Summer of Love" the Civil Rights movement and an increasingly unpopular war overseas. There was a lot of change in a short period of time between 1967 and 1973. I haven't checked the numbers, but I wonder if you could have even fielded a Volunteer Army during that period that would have kept manpower levels anywhere near adequate compared to the basic needs. Of course, that's also the case today which is why we now have all the stop loss in effect, the highly paid civilian "contractors," the multiple reserve and guard tours and the plummeting enlistment standards to keep the numbers in the ball park. Frankly, if I were part of the volunteer Army today, going on my second tour in Iraq as a reservist or stop-lossed grunt, I would imagine I might be wondering why others aren't being called to help shoulder this burden. When you can't shop your way to victory, perhaps it's time to put up or pull out.
The late Col. David Hackworth who lead and was extremely successful turning the draftee "Hopeless" battalion into the highly successful "Hardcore" battalion in Vietnam (read Steel My Soldiers Hearts if you want to learn something about military leadership) had few problems with the draftee force. He was, in fact, far more critical of the career military of the time and failures like the 12-month rotation policy. This churned officers and NCOs which rapidly diluted experienced leadership very early in the war never to be fully recovered and removed the line soldiers once they were at their prime of experience. It also set an "X numbers of days and a wakeup" attitude that was counter productive. It created not only a heavily draftee force, but a "green" draftee force at virtually all levels in the field.
Hackworth proved that if properly led and motivated, draftees could achieve the same results as they did in WW2 and Korea (eventually) and through the bulk of the Cold War. Remember, draftees were what made the greatest generation great
The draftees in fact provided a necessary counter to the careerists who let politics and advancement goals get in the way of mission too often -- they simply didn't have the career focus to put up with BS.
Today, the draft would expose people to others of different backgrounds, and to a higher cause and the service of a greater good. They would share a common experience. They would be future journalists, politicians, celebrities, teachers, college professors, athletes, corporate managers and others who have a place of influence in society but often a narrow world view and limited experience outside their own niche in society -- from elementary school to retirement. It would also give far more of the country some "skin in the game" for when we decide military action is justified. After all, if you support a war which might kill someone else's child, then you should be prepared to pay the ultimate cost yourself -- if it's actually worth it.
Charon
