Quote:
Originally Posted by mosholu
I guess from reading these posts that some of you feel, as I do, that there is a lack of doctrine over the last 25 years about when US forces should be committed by the President.
To that extent I would ask the following question:
Do people think that since the draft has ended the Presidents have been more willing to commit US forces in various situations because the public is not as involved as when the draft, in theory, effected a larger base of the population?
My own take on this was that military actions would be less often and of a much more limited nature because the political fall out from having more young men and women at home subject to military service would keep the executive on a tight leash.
|
Perhaps, but we did lose more soldiers in military adventures when the draft was mandatory. Could the decrease in deaths be solely due to technical advances that make obsolete old ways of battle? Or has the bureaucratic tendency to squander resources when the supply of those resources is great--money or bodies--been changed by a draftless military depending on a smaller pool of select recruits? Is that military less willing to throw masses of well trained valuable career oriented young bodies into sure death to gain some ground, and more willing to spend billions on technology that can kill at the push of a button? And have our political leaders seen this advanced, powerful military weapon not only as as an enforcer of the traditional doctrine of engaging it as a force to protect the homeland and ensure American interests, but as a tool to change the world--a weapon not only of the United States, but also of the United Nations?
Hybrid Mode
