End the All-Volunteer Force

[Fuchs]

I think if anything it had a hand in reinforcing the "useless civilian" idea within certain sectors of the military.

Call your troops home, dissolve the forts and force the soldiers to live in civilian housings off-base after basic.

[Steve Blair]

Call your troops home, dissolve the forts and force the soldiers to live in civilian housings off-base after basic.

They already live off-base as often as they can. Then they draw the housing allowance.

[Entropy]

I would ask you to think about conscription slightly differently. As in this thread the echo chamber of "warrior culture" is loud and resoundingly echoing. Conscription would break the back of elitist soldiering and sailoring culture and perhaps a little bit of that chip many carry on their shoulder. The "we suffer so you can go to the mall" drags finger nails across the chalkboard of ideology a wee bit much.

Conscription is a nasty word balanced by "public service" a nice euphemism for conscription. Before, y'all professional military types get your back up think about the country and what it means to enforce service. Service does not necessarily have to be all bullets and blood, nor does it require substantive treasure to throw at the problem. Conscription would break the back of the elitist soldier culture and perhaps infuse it with a wee bit of empathy for civilians.

I get it. Being all military is a club. No problem. What are the ramifications of that?

Let's get to a fundamental question: What is the purpose of conscription?

It seems to me you and Ricks see it as a social engineering tool, either to compel policymakers to choose different policies or to "enforce service" onto Americans in order to change cultural values.

IMO implementing conscription for such purposes won't achieve the desired results and will cause numerous other problems. The evidence that such ends can be achieved via conscription is very thin to nonexistent outside the context of a major threat to the United States (such as WWII).

For me, conscription is practical question and it's purpose it to provide sufficient manpower to prosecute the nation's wars when other means (like volunteerism) are insufficient. We should, IMO, always be prepared to implement conscription (and indeed, If I were King I would extend selective service to women) if and when it becomes necessary. It should only be implemented when truly necessary however. Implementing conscription as a steady-state norm during war and peace is, in my view, not only wasteful but also damaging to the United States.

[AmericanPride]

The numbers simply do not bear illustrate the superiority of an all-volunteer force.

During the Civil War, the Union had a approximate strength of 2 million men, with 168,000 drafted, for a percentage of about 8.5%. With battlefield losses of about 20%, an 8.5% reduction in force would have been quite significant.

In WW1, the US had a personnel strength of about 4.7 million. Of that, about 3 million were inductees. That's about 64% of the total force strength.

During WW2, the US had about 13 million men under arms, with 11 million inductees; conscripts constituting about 85% of the force.

Now, the US has been involved in the so-called era of persistent conflict for eleven years, with more to come. According to the Joint Chiefs Chairman:

But in any case, I believe I’m chairman at a time that seems less dangerous but it’s actually more dangerous. That’s the essence of what I describe as a security paradox. Although geopolitical trends are ushering in greater levels of peace and stability worldwide, destructive technologies are available to a wider and more disparate pool of adversaries. Highly accurate ballistic missiles are prevalent in every theater. Bombs made out of fertilizer can defeat and destroy our toughest mine-resistant vehicles. A cyberattack could stop this society in its tracks. And these are real threats that we face today.

What truly concerns me as chairman is that these lethal and destructive technologies are proliferating in two directions. They’re proliferating horizontally across advanced militaries in the world, and they’re proliferating vertically, down to nonstate actors, especially insurgents, terrorist groups and even transnational organized crime. As a result, more people have the ability to harm us or deny us the ability to act than at any point in my life. And that’s the security paradox.

Today, the US has an active duty force of about 1 million men, none of which are conscripts. Yet the total expenditure for the GWoT has exceeded that of every other US conflict (yes, including WW2). In the Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam, there were definitive outcomes: 3 favorable, 1 arguable, and one negative. That's not a bad track record.

During the most recent draft era (1940 - 1973), the US entered the following "wars of choice": Korea, Vietnam, and Dominican Republic. Since 1973, the US pursued the following "wars of choice": Grenada, Panama, Colombia, Iraq I and II, Bosnia/Serbia/etc, Haiti, and Libya. One could arguably add Yemen, Djibouti, Philippines, and Somalia depending on definitions. Of those, only Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, and Iraq I had a definitive and favorable outcome.

So, the institutional momentum is increasing towards a greater number of military operations accompanied by higher costs (the causes of which are well documented by Pentagon watchers) and lesser definite and favorable outcomes. Even with the economic challenges faced by the country, there is little indication of slowing, much less reversal. Higher and more complex demands are being placed on a smaller, more expensive force, with the predictable results of poor conflict outcomes, higher personnel attrition, and high service crime rates. A military "elite" (mentioned earlier in this thread) has it good with higher pay, etc than their past counterparts. But that doesn't indicate whatsoever that the total force is doing any better (i.e. winning more wars more effectively; which on the whole it isn't); it only means that living conditions expectations have increased.

Ken, and the general consensus it seems, assigns this problem to outdated personnel and training systems, and various Congressional policies; though, at the same time, it is pointed out that Congress has also dramatically increased the amount of money spent on the services, with a significant portion invested in training, personnel, and acquisition. Since 1973 (the end of the most recent draft era), Congress has elected to declare war a total of zero times, has issued a military force authorization a grand three times, and has had its war powers ignored by the President at least four times. And even though Congress has required that every federal department comply with standard financial practices, the Defense Department is the only one that has failed to do so. That doesn't incite much confidence in Congress' ability (or willingness?) to influence military policy, with specific regards to engaging in and favorably terminating conflict.

So where is, according to Ken, the "world historical record" that demonstrates the "superiority" of the all-volunteer force? Every major US conflict was won with a substantial number of conscripts. The US was engaged in less conflict (and at less cost per conflict!) with conscription than without. And, lastly, the powers of Congress were substantially stronger relative to the President in regards to war-making in the most recent draft era than with today's all-volunteer force.

[AmericanPride]

For me, conscription is practical question and it's purpose it to provide sufficient manpower to prosecute the nation's wars when other means (like volunteerism) are insufficient.

That's one outcome of conscription policy...

Implementing conscription as a steady-state norm during war and peace is, in my view, not only wasteful but also damaging to the United States.

The most recent draft era (1940 - 1973) was no more damaging to the United States than the last decade of conflict (2001 - present), and certainly no more than since 1973. US wars have been more frequent since 1973. US wars have cost more than before 1973 (yes, even with adjusted for inflation). And the outcome of those wars have been less definitive and less favorable than wars before 1973. As an addendum, the US during the most recent draft era also had fantastic economic growth and increased middle class living conditions, not to mention the civil rights movement and the expansion of women opportunities in government and the economy. Since then, the US has had stagnating incomes, the implementation of a regressive tax code, the diminishing of rights and privacy, and the weakening of Congressional war powers. So please point out how conscription is "wasteful" and "damaging" for the United States.

[Entropy]

AmericanPride,

Well, I agree that the AVF isn't any more able to win strategically incoherent wars than a conscript military can. So, yes, I guess by that metric the AVF is not superior.

Also, I find that I agree with most of your comment in general, but the problems you bring up aren't solved through conscription.

The US was engaged in less conflict (and at less cost per conflict!) with conscription than without.

I think you might want to recheck this. There was no conscription after the Civil War until 1917 (except for a brief period in 1898). It ended in 1918 and didn't come back until 1940. Historically conscription was used only when manpower was needed for war.

And, lastly, the powers of Congress were substantially stronger relative to the President in regards to war-making in the most recent draft era than with today's all-volunteer force.

Yes, now please explain how it would be different with conscription. I think you are making the mistake of believing that conscription, or the lack thereof, is the cause of all these problems you identify.

Since 1973, the US pursued the following "wars of choice": Grenada, Panama, Colombia, Iraq I and II, Bosnia/Serbia/etc, Haiti, and Libya. One could arguably add Yemen, Djibouti, Philippines, and Somalia depending on definitions. Of those, only Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, and Iraq I had a definitive and favorable outcome.

Ok, you imply the cause is conscription. Please explain how those wars would have been more successfully prosecuted with a conscript military.

[Steve Blair]

So where is, according to Ken, the "world historical record" that demonstrates the "superiority" of the all-volunteer force? Every major US conflict was won with a substantial number of conscripts. The US was engaged in less conflict (and at less cost per conflict!) with conscription than without. And, lastly, the powers of Congress were substantially stronger relative to the President in regards to war-making in the most recent draft era than with today's all-volunteer force.

Take the Civil War out of your ponderings, please. The backbone of the Union Army was state-raised volunteer units, not conscripts. The same statement applies to the Spanish-American War (and in terms of territorial gain you can't overlook the Mexican-American War...which was fought with state units and Regulars). And how many conscripts from World War I made it to the front lines?

[AmericanPride]

I think you might want to recheck this. There was no conscription after the Civil War until 1917 (except for a brief period in 1898). It ended in 1918 and didn't come back until 1940. Historically conscription was used only when manpower was needed for war.

True, with the exception of 1940 - 1973. In how many wars of choice was the US engaged in prior to 1861, between 1861 - 1917, and between 1918 -1940? How do we measure the rates of conflicts for those periods and compare them to 1940 - 1973?

Yes, now please explain how it would be different with conscription.

Congress, (first the House, then the Senate) are more responsive to the American public than President -- mostly because of term limits and continual office campaigning (see the effect of the Tea Party in 2010 and 2012 on the Republican Party). With conscription, more people would be directly involved in foreign policy process of the country. That would place conflict as a primary voter issue right next to jobs and social programs, which translates into greater pressure on the political parties (first at the local level) to address whatever issue arises. During an election year, this is accomplished through the primaries, and for the House, this occurs every other year. It may not have prevented the Iraq War, but it would have significantly influenced Congressional oversight and interest in its methods and outcomes (of course I'm pressuming that Congressional oversight has a net positive effect...)

[Entropy]

As an addendum, the US during the most recent draft era also had fantastic economic growth and increased middle class living conditions, not to mention the civil rights movement and the expansion of women opportunities in government and the economy. Since then, the US has had stagnating incomes, the implementation of a regressive tax code, the diminishing of rights and privacy, and the weakening of Congressional war powers. So please point out how conscription is "wasteful" and "damaging" for the United States.

Again, please explain how and why conscription is/was the cause for any of this. For example, the notion that the end of conscription is somehow responsible for stagnating incomes in the US is certainly a unique view, and it will be interesting to see how you will justify the link. I'd also like to see an explanation for the logical implication that a return to conscription will improve things you mention and potentially return us to the pre-1973 status quo ante. Finally, I'd like to understand exactly how we can increase "our rights and privacy" through the mechanism of mandatory, enforced servitude to the US Government.

[AmericanPride]

Take the Civil War out of your ponderings, please. The backbone of the Union Army was state-raised volunteer units, not conscripts.

I will ignore the Civil War if you can demonstrate that the Confederate Army ignored 168,000 (or 8.5%) men of the Union Army during the war.

The same statement applies to the Spanish-American War (and in terms of territorial gain you can't overlook the Mexican-American War...which was fought with state units and Regulars.)

Where have I argued that an all volunteer force is incapable of producing positive outcomes? I don't think I have -- instead, I have pointed out the successes of conscription in the United States and that the all-volunteer force isn't all it's cracked up to be in regards to the welfare of the nation or outcomes of US conflicts.

[AmericanPride]

For example, the notion that the end of conscription is somehow responsible for stagnating incomes in the US is certainly a unique view, and it will be interesting to see how you will justify the link.

You claimed that a new draft would be "wasteful" and "damaging" to the United States. I'm only pointing out that middle class Americans were economically and politically better off during the most recent draft period than during the years since, which challenges the idea that a new draft would somehow be an unmitigated disaster to America and Americans.

I'd also like to see an explanation for the logical implication that a return to conscription will improve things you mention and potentially return us to the pre-1973 status quo ante.

Finally, I'd like to understand exactly how we can increase "our rights and privacy" through the mechanism of mandatory, enforced servitude to the US Government.

I haven't argued that it would -- I've only pointed out that these things were better during the most recent draft period than after it with the all-volunteer force. Whether a new draft would reverse it, I don't know -- but it certainly couldn't be worse than the unsustainable all-volunteer force we have now.

[Entropy]

The most recent draft era (1940 - 1973) was no more damaging to the United States than the last decade of conflict (2001 - present)

I should explain what I mean by "damaging to the United States." I'm specifically not talking about foreign threats, but domestic tranquility and equality.

Universal conscription is not really practical since about 4 million young adults reach 18 each year. So the question becomes a political one of who gets drafted and who doesn't. I don't think this can be accomplished equitably except, perhaps, in times of great military necessity (ie. a large conflict which requires lots of manpower which is when you'd need a draft anyway). Inevitably, those with more political influence will be less likely to be drafted than those with less political influence. We are still living with some of those issues from the last draft (see GWB and Bill Clinton). So, I think a return to the draft would enlarge divisions within America, not diminish them, and I think that is what would be damaging to America.

I'm only pointing out that middle class Americans were economically and politically better off during the most recent draft period than during the years since, which challenges the idea that a new draft would somehow be an unmitigated disaster to America and Americans.

Well, first of all, I never said or suggested a draft would be an "unmitigated disaster" for the US. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't editorialize my comments.

Edit: I forgot to add about "wasteful." IMO, taking capital and labor out of the civilian economy absent a military necessity is wasteful.

Secondly, well, uh, ok, you're just pointing things out. If you can't explain how conscription is remotely relevant to the issues you pointed out, then perhaps you can explain your purpose in raising issues that aren't relevant to conscription.

Let's get back to that fundamental question for a minute: What is the purpose of conscription?

[Steve Blair]

I will ignore the Civil War if you can demonstrate that the Confederate Army ignored 168,000 (or 8.5%) men of the Union Army during the war.

You continue to avoid the fact that the BACKBONE of the Union Army was state volunteer regiments. I understand that the 8.5% figure fits in with your pro-conscription position, but it still doesn't square with the military facts of that conflict. To reverse the statistics, 91.5% of the Union Army was NOT conscripted. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but based on strength before the Civil War and the declining Regular enlistments when compared to state units, I would expect that fully 85%-90% of the total Union force was in fact state volunteer units (at the start of the war the Regulars numbered around 23,000).

Has it ever occurred to you that many of the failings that exist in the current force (poor training, personnel system, etc.) exist primarily because they were developed with a conscript force in mind?

What makes the volunteer force unsustainable is the attempt to maintain it at levels more suited to a Cold War, conscription-based force. It seems to me that you're trying to tailor the force to that model rather than looking at a more realistic vision for the force. Volunteer forces are the norm in American military history, not the exception.

[Steve Blair]

Universal conscription is not really practical since about 4 million young adults reach 18 each year. So the question becomes a political one of who gets drafted and who doesn't. I don't think this can be accomplished equitably except, perhaps, in times of great military necessity (ie. a large conflict which requires lots of manpower which is when you'd need a draft anyway). Inevitably, those with more political influence will be less likely to be drafted than those with less political influence. We are still living with some of those issues from the last draft (see GWB and Bill Clinton). So, I think a return to the draft would enlarge divisions within America, not diminish them, and I think that is what would be damaging to America.

And this was what came into play with many of the draft exemptions that came into force in the early 1960s. It was never universal service, and when less force was needed it became even less universal. And when the need came to ramp up calls, it was only natural to target those who were in no shape to politically resist those calls (the lower class) or not inclined to do so (the middle class).

[Fuchs]

To reverse the statistics, 91.5% of the Union Army was NOT conscripted.

Well, there was apparently some stop-loss policy regarding some (many?) regiments. That's a very close equivalent to conscription.

[Steve Blair]

Well, there was apparently some stop-loss policy regarding some (many?) regiments. That's a very close equivalent to conscription.

Not that many once you clear the first 90-day volunteers. There were strong attempts to get regiments to reenlist when the first long-term volunteer units reached the end of their enlistments (roughly 1863-64 depending on the unit and when it first entered service), but that was about it as far as I know. Most opted to reenlist, either as a unit or as individuals. Those who did went on extended furloughs and were entitled to add "Veteran" to their regimental title if they extended as a unit. Of course, by that point in the war many regiments were down to a couple of hundred men, since states raised new regiments rather than reconstitute those already in service.

[wm]

By the time the US got into WWI, the majority of the other combatants had bled themselves white through almost 4 years of conflict. It is little wonder that the US was able to inject success into the Allied side. But even that success came only after significant additional training of the AEF was provided after its arrival in France.
Similarly, in WWII, the US did not have much of a ground force presence until 1943, while again, the rest of the combatants had been slugging it out for some 3-4 years. The American conscripts had a good 2 years to get trained, both in CONUS and, in the European theater, in England beforing being committed. The early US operations in North Africa were a travesty. Guadalcanal was, likewise, not a real good example of effective use of a ground force by the US. The casualty counts in the island hopping campaigns says something negative about the effective use of of US troops as well, in my opinion--might all be a leadership issue, but not every leader wasa member of the "regular" force.

An unrelated criticism of American Pride's line of reasoning is that the appeal to the better state of affairs during the Baby Boom period is really committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent (amounts to the same thing). Prosperity was to be had in America after WWII and American had a draft at the same time. That is about all I haver seen supported by American Pride's claim. What is the casual connection between prosperity and conscription?
If I remember my history, the US had an economic boom in the 1880s and
90s without any conscription underway. That would seem to be a counter example to the alleged connection between conscription and prosperity.

[AmericanPride]

Universal conscription is not really practical since about 4 million young adults reach 18 each year. So the question becomes a political one of who gets drafted and who doesn't. I don't think this can be accomplished equitably except, perhaps, in times of great military necessity (ie. a large conflict which requires lots of manpower which is when you'd need a draft anyway). Inevitably, those with more political influence will be less likely to be drafted than those with less political influence. We are still living with some of those issues from the last draft (see GWB and Bill Clinton). So, I think a return to the draft would enlarge divisions within America, not diminish them, and I think that is what would be damaging to America.

This is probably the greatest problem, though I think it's largely been addressed through a number of selective service reforms undertaken since 1973 to reduce exemptions and deferments. Of course, there will always be people who will seek to avoid their obligations; if someone is intent on breaking the law, the law won't stop them from doing so. The question is to what extent could this occur in the future, would it be nationally significant (as apart from politically significant for public service "careers"), and what factors could mitigate it.

Then again, the drafts in WW1 and WW2, for example, opened up the workforce to minorities and women. As of the end of 2011, the unemployment rate for young adults (18 - 24) was 16.7%. With 4 million new young adults each year, labor is only becoming more competitive and will continue to drive down wages (in the absence of a minimum wage increase). Removing those 4 million young adults from the labor force anywhere from 2 - 24 months would (1) increase demand for labor and therefore increase wages and (2) provide surplus labor an outlet to input value into the economy. After all, it can't be assumed that we'll poor in 4 million new soldiers into a conflict every year, and they will use their labor and wages for other purposes. (If the current military demographic is any indication, it will be on beer, fishing, Nascar, and strip clubs).

Well, first of all, I never said or suggested a draft would be an "unmitigated disaster" for the US. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't editorialize my comments.

My bad.

If you can't explain how conscription is remotely relevant to the issues you pointed out, then perhaps you can explain your purpose in raising issues that aren't relevant to conscription.

It's relevant to the extent that there is no correlation between maintaining an all-volunteer force and the general welfare or security of the country. After WW2, when millions of young men were demobilized and sent home (85% of whom were draftees), they didn't just provide a baby boom. They were also provided financial and educational benefits that lead to the post-war economic boom, in turn financing today's infrastructure projects and social programs (including the origins of the internet). In totality, this led to higher education rates and performance, higher employment rates with higher quality jobs, higher wages across the entire class spectrum, more effective tax code, and faster technological development. Not to mention the impetus for integration of minorities and women in politics, the economy, and society (and even the school lunch program) as a result of the war's demands and continued requirements of national security.

In fact, it's generally established that maintaining an all-volunteer force has the opposite effect. Every dollar spent on defense is a net drain on the economy, with the opportunity cost being the higher returns in economic activity and job growth that could have been gained by investing in education, infrastructure, health, or technology. The military "culture" is increasingly a southern-Christian-conservative culture with a fantasy "warrior culture" at odds with most demographics of American society (with the exception of the southern-Christian-conservatives that enlist in large numbers). Now, today's SWJ blogpost did posit the interesting idea of tying counter-insurgency projects to development projects here at home, which may in some way mitigate the high cost/low output (read: inefficiency) problem of the AVF.

You continue to avoid the fact that the BACKBONE of the Union Army was state volunteer regiments. I understand that the 8.5% figure fits in with your pro-conscription position, but it still doesn't square with the military facts of that conflict.

I'm not avoiding any fact. Duh, the corollary to 8.5% is 91.5%. So what? How does that make the service of 168,000 men insignificant? How is 8.5% a statistically insignificant number? The obvious fact is that despite the general mythos captured in the New York Draft Riot, almost a tenth of all soldiers in the Union Army were draftees.

Has it ever occurred to you that many of the failings that exist in the current force (poor training, personnel system, etc.) exist primarily because they were developed with a conscript force in mind?

Actually, I think it more has to do with poor strategic leadership, gross budgetary waste and inefficiency coupled with no accountability, and a cultural obsession with high speed, low drag next-generation equipment instead of manpower. The quality of the soldier does not change with how he was recruited (or are the 85% of drafted WW2 veterans not a part of the Greatest Generation?) but instead with leadership and policy. I never argued the AVF to be inept... it's simply just not as effective as our most recent use of a conscripted force.

What makes the volunteer force unsustainable is the attempt to maintain it at levels more suited to a Cold War, conscription-based force

No -- it's unsustainable because of the defense death spiral which can only be profitable at the expense of long-term military readiness. Of the top 20 countries by active-duty end-strength, 13 have more soldiers per 1000 capita than the US. None of those, excluding the US, are in the top 20 of economies by GDP and none of them exceed the US in defense expenditures per capita either. So that tells me that while the US has much higher capacity to maintain a professional military force, the excess 'space' created by a larger economy is being consumed by inefficiencies in the defense budget. Treasure is the sinews of war, and we're not spending ours effectively. That is why the all-volunteer force is unsustainable.

And this was what came into play with many of the draft exemptions that came into force in the early 1960s. It was never universal service, and when less force was needed it became even less universal. And when the need came to ramp up calls, it was only natural to target those who were in no shape to politically resist those calls (the lower class) or not inclined to do so (the middle class).

How does this compare to the fact that war has now become an exclusively middle class burden, both in service and in financing?

[AmericanPride]

By the time the US got into WWI, the majority of the other combatants had bled themselves white through almost 4 years of conflict. It is little wonder that the US was able to inject success into the Allied side. But even that success came only after significant additional training of the AEF was provided after its arrival in France.
Similarly, in WWII, the US did not have much of a ground force presence until 1943, while again, the rest of the combatants had been slugging it out for some 3-4 years. The American conscripts had a good 2 years to get trained, both in CONUS and, in the European theater, in England beforing being committed. The early US operations in North Africa were a travesty. Guadalcanal was, likewise, not a real good example of effective use of a ground force by the US. The casualty counts in the island hopping campaigns says something negative about the effective use of of US troops as well, in my opinion--might all be a leadership issue, but not every leader wasa member of the "regular" force.

How does the effective use of draftees (i.e. the attainment of a favorable political outcome in a conflict) dispute the claim that draftees can be used effectively?

An unrelated criticism of American Pride's line of reasoning is that the appeal to the better state of affairs during the Baby Boom period is really committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent (amounts to the same thing). Prosperity was to be had in America after WWII and American had a draft at the same time. That is about all I haver seen supported by American Pride's claim. What is the casual connection between prosperity and conscription?

You are right -- in my previous posts I did not provide an explanation for what I see to be connections between universal national service and economic productivity. I did address that in my most recent post before this, however. One of the immediate consequences of WW2 was ending the Great Depression but the profits gained by industry during the war is not a sufficient explanation for continued economic success after the war when those military contracts disappeared and businesses went back to making butters instead of guns. The opportunity was capitalized upon by the millions of Americans (85% of them draftees) returning home who went back to school, bought houses and cars, and found good paying jobs to raise all the kids they would be having. And this opportunity was provided to them as a result of their military service, of which the vast majority was a result of involuntary induction. In comparison, the GWoT has cost the US anywhere from 3 trillion to 8 trillion dollars (take your pick), and instead of producing a post-war boom (the Iraq War is over right???), it has forced the country into a financial emergency.

If I remember my history, the US had an economic boom in the 1880s and
90s without any conscription underway. That would seem to be a counter example to the alleged connection between conscription and prosperity.

I did not claim that there were not economic booms caused by factors other than conscription programs. This is not the same as claiming that conscription programs can have a net positive affect on a country.

[Steve Blair]

I'm not avoiding any fact. Duh, the corollary to 8.5% is 91.5%. So what? How does that make the service of 168,000 men insignificant? How is 8.5% a statistically insignificant number? The obvious fact is that despite the general mythos captured in the New York Draft Riot, almost a tenth of all soldiers in the Union Army were draftees.

You are attaching a significance to a stat that it doesn't deserve. I understand that you depend on it to bolster your position, but that doesn't make it correct. The romantic attachment to the draft is just that...romantic in the old sense of the word and often unencumbered by objective analysis.

And before we get too attached to those Boomers and their accomplishments, let's also take time to consider their role in the over-inflation of the US education system (to the point where a college degree is now the paid equivalent of a high school diploma and necessary two-year technical programs are often marginalized as "not good enough" when compared to the four-year degree). How many are being pushed into the military to take advantage of various aid programs spawned by the draft in order to finance their own society-mandated post-secondary education?

And that Greatest Generation rhetoric is just that. I fail to see how feeling a draft these days would not work squares with comparison to World War II. Let's also not forget that those draftees with lower aptitude scores were usually funneled into the infantry. Or that the "total mobilization" of the US was also a reasonable amount of political rhetoric. 90 Division Gamble, anyone?

And wm, you are correct. During the later 1800s we also saw similar spikes in enlistment due to economic downturns, accompanied by an accelerated sense of moral and social superiority on the part of the officer corps when compared to the rest of US society. It's an interesting period from a military standpoint...one that we too often ignore.