Well the draft was in effect for quite a long time and it worked fine, very few "want" to serve in the military, the point is not "wanting to join" but it's your duty, yeah I know these days duty and honor have little meaning to some of our youth. A good friend of mine joined the Corps, rather then wait to get drafted, sure with his attitude he would have joined up draft or not. But as a young PFC hitting the beach in Da Nang in 1965 his gross (not net...) pay was around $60USD, yeah six - zero.... just over ten years later when I join the Corps PFC pay was maybe $400/month.... the point I was attempting to make in my post above was IF the pay rates for todays military was equal to what Private Contractors make, granted the fresh boot just outta boot camp can't be expected to be paid the same as some Force Recon Staff Sargent.... But if the pay was better, AND in my opinion a greater percentage of Americans served (via the Draft and volunteers) morale would increase. Every one wants to enjoy the freedoms we have in most western countries, its time they pay for it with a little sweat and blood when needed.
Yes, would the draft bring in a bunch of less then wonderful group of people, well there are all sorts of crap jobs to give the ones bucking the system. Digging squat-trenches, burning honey-buckets, etc. Tough doo-doo if you don't like the job you get assigned....
Make the pay worth the effort and add some extra incentives.... no military service = no free college grants and student loans, no welfare, no drivers License.... maybe even no citizenship... (oh that one will start the nasty replies flooding in) yes maybe the citizenship crack was a bit much...
Why give people who aren't willing to defend this country the privileges this country has to give?
Tough love? yeah...
Granted we would of course make considersations for TRUE CO's and the unfit / too stupid / handicapped, etc .....
Not sure you've looked around the streets of the US, but most of these dirtbag youth could use a little discipline and hard work.
Basic Enlisted Pay Rates Effective January 2005
2005 US Military Pay scale:
http://www.military.com/Resources/ResourcesContent/0,13964,49020,00.HTML
even just doubling those rates and think of the people would would be willing to join...
Bare with me while I blabber on endlessly................. I'm just getting warmed up......
We might ask how accurate is the current picture of military disarray.
First, the Marines have suffered disproportionate fatalities in the war in Iraq. They are about 30 percent of all combat deaths, yet make up only 11 percent of current American forces. But in May the Marines slightly exceeded their recruitment goal. The Air Force and Navy likewise met 100 percent of their requirements. The Army traditionally has had the hardest time meeting its targets, given the reputation â †warranted or not â †that the other branches offer more specialized training and skills that will better enhance civilian careers without the same level of risk as ground combat. PersPersonallyhink it's the carp Army dress uniforms....
Second, the year is only half over, it's sumer who the heck wants to go to boot camp with all the sweeties on the beach in thongs? The Army may well rebound and meet its full 2005 quota, as nearly all branches of the active services (the Army and Air National Guard were exceptions) did in 2004. Much depends on whether the economy continues to improve and thus competes for high-school graduates, and whether the Iraqi military can take over its envisioned preponderant military role, keeping the insurgency out of the daily headlines.
Third, on demographic grounds, our current troop mobilizations are hardly a drain on the U.S. population base. In a country of about 300 million residents, we have about 1.4 million troops deployed worldwide (less then 1/2 of one percent of current US population in the military if my wine-math is correct). Yet in 1974, during the first full year of the all-volunteer army, the United States deployed 1.9 million soldiers, drawing on a population of more than 210 million. In other words, when the population was just 70 percent of our current size, the armed forces sustained troop levels 1.3 times larger than our present military. But recyreplacing same service men back and forth to Iraq and AfgaAfghanistanr and over on extended deployments is a drain on them in my opinion. Don't you think we could spare to draft the top 1 percent of the men and women in America and triptripleth the current .5% of volunteers) the size of our military with little effect?
Critics harp on the expenses of the War on Terror and suggest that we are unable to sustain such a drain. Yet in the first full year of the volunteer army, military expenditures accounted for 58 percent of discretionary spending, or about 5.5 percent of the gross domestic product. In 2003, when we invaded Iraq with 200,000 troops and conducted reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, we allotted only 49 percent of discretionary spending to defense, some 3.7 percent of GDP â †itself a moderate rise from 1999â “2000, when defense expenditure had descended to the historical low of about 3 percent of GDP. This suggests the armed forces were inadequate to meet the security profile of the United States well before September 11. Thank you very much Mr. & Mrs. Clinton...
If it turns out that we need more troops in the military, based on historical precedents and current resources, we surely have the population and national wealth to field larger forces than we presently deploy, and to pay them more than we do now.
Crapp when I start using phrases like "3 percent of GDP" I know I had too much wine with dinner and I'm going to be boring the hell out of you all... or maybe its too much whine....