Reply #10: The Draft of the 1950s was do to the lack of Births during the 1930s [View All]

[happyslug]

The US believed it needed a Large Army to offset the Soviet Army in Europe and the North Koren Army in Korea. At the same time the economy was booming in the US. Given the lack of births in the 1930s, compared to the later baby boom, there was no way the Army could get the number of 18 years olds to enlist that the Army though it needed. Thus the Draft was continued.

Furthermore, the Cold War was NOT called the Cold War for Nothing. While the number of times US soldiers shot or was shot at, was almost Zero (Except for Korea, Vietnam and various other places the US intervened in during the 1950s and 1960s).

As to if we had a draft would US commanders throw more men into combat. I would have to agree, except those same commanders will be more reluctant to agree to something like Iraq do to greater opposition from home. The US would like to be able to use its forces like they were a mercenary army, use them and if they are killed that is they bad luck given they free choice. The American people can accept such losses from mercenaries (Which is all out Volunteer Army is). On the other hand the American People will NOT accept such losses to they sons, if the sons are only serving because they were drafted. What support this war had when Bush first ordered it would NOT have existed if the Army was Draftee instead of mercenary.

The Classic situation was the change in the Roman Army from the time of Second Punic War (c200bc), the fall of Carthage during the Third Punic War (c146 bc) and the "Reforms" of Maius (c109 bc). At the time of the Second Punic War the Roman Army was at its height. The Roman Army defeated Hannibal, took over a good piece of Spain and Defeated Macedonia within 20 years of the Battle of Carrahe (Where 60,000 Romans lost they lives to Hannibal, the worse defeat any Roman Army ever Suffered). The Losses to Hannibal was quickly made up. The Roman Army was a Universal Service Draftee Army at this time, and that Army defeated all of the Enemies of Rome.

By the Time of the Third Punic War, the Roman people saw no reason for the war, it was done at the bequest of the Ruling Elite who wanted control of Carthage African Trade. The Draftee Roman Army went through the Motion and took Carthage, but its heart was not in it for the Average Roman Soldiers, and his family back home in Rome, saw no reason for the War except the ruling elites greed. The Draftee Army was becoming unreliable for it did NOT see any advantage for itself or the country as a whole for the Wars the Rome was Fighting. In 109 BC the number of Romans refusing to serve in the Roman Army was huge, so large that when two German Tribes moved in what is now Southern France, but was then Roman Gaul, Maius could NOT rely on the old system of calling up the troops, instead he paid them out of his own pocket if they agreed to fight for him (This is the start of the Roman Mercenary Army). This army was willing to serve anyone who paid it and as such was used by Sulla to take over Rome and rule it as a dictator for ten years. Sulla retired and then you had the fight between his successor, Caesar and Pompey. Both used the Mercenary army under they command. The people were ignored (Through it is believed the people supported Caesar). After the wars of Caesar and his nephew Augustus Caesar. The Roman Army was cut to a 1/3 of its size during the Civil War (which was smaller then it had been when fighting Hannibal). This Army lasted 400 years, but because the other Countries of the world was much weaker then Rome. When Rome faced enemies that could face it Persia after 200 AD and the Goths after 400 AD) it fail. The reason being its Army was NOT Large enough to fight these enemies AND keep its peasants in line. The Roman Empire did not stabilized till it reverted to a Universal Service Army after its final war with the Persians (This switch was the just before the Arab Conquest and is the main reason Constantinople survived for another 800 years, while Persia fell to the Arabs). This adoption of a Universal Service Army also meant that the Empire had to view itself as a nation, not a means for the rich to rule the world (Thus the Empire switched to becoming a Greek Based empire, even giving up on Egypt rather than making the Empire both an Egyptian and Greek empire, you can NOT have a Universal Service Army unless the people in that Army believes they are fighting for their homes, and the Romans did not believe their soldiers could viewed themselves as defenders of Greece and Egypt).

Thus when facing enemies that could take its territory, Rome tried to keep its mercenary Army, even after that army was seen as ineffective. The solution was the adoption of a Universal Service Army but that meant the Soldiers of that Army must NOT think of their pay, but their homes. Such armies are lousy for keeping Foreign territories so Rome could only embrace such an army when it has lost the West and Egypt. Once those areas were under Foreign Control to save the remains of the Empire (The Greek Speaking part) the Empire had to adopt Universal Military Service AND give up the ability to control areas outside of its home base (This Egypt was given up on, through it was returned by the Persians but then taken by the Arabs). The Universal Service Army was very good at defending the Greek Speaking part of the Empire, but the days of Conquest was over when the Empire returned to using a Universal Service Army.

My point is this, NO COUNTRY CAN SUPPORT AN ARMY OCCUPYING ANOTHER COUNTRY, Unless that army is a Mercenary Army. Sooner or later the Mercenary Army will fail, do to the lack of Cash (Generally by the need to have to many men to pay based on the need to keep to many men occupying the Country). On the other hand a Universal Service Army has no interest to occupy a foreign Country (except if it is viewed as an Enemy and when that Country is no viewed as an enemy the Universal Service Army wants to go home).

What Bush wants is the US Army be like the Roman Army of the 100 BC to 300 AD, small and effective at expanding the Bush's Power. The problem is in Iraq the mercenary Army the US can hire at present is NOT large enough to occupy the Iraq. A larger Army is needed, and the only way to get that is a Draft. The problem with a Draft is if Draftees enter the present US army it will become more a Universal Service Army then a Dragooned Draftee Army (Do to US army Doctrine more than anything else). As a Universal Service Army, the Army will be ineffective as an occupying force for both the Soldiers and the people will want the Army to come home. Bush is facing a dilemma of his own creation, he wants Iraq, but he does NOT have the troops to keep Iraq. Bush has a way to get the troops needed to hold Iraq, but that Army once formed will want to come home AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL ALSO WANT THE ARMY HOME. Bush is hoping he can have a little Draft like they do in Latin America, but the American people will not tolerate such a draft. What Bush should do, is what the Roman Empire did in the 600s, abandoned any place that did NOT view itself as Roman. Do NOT try to hold any area where the natives did NOT want us there. Bush should adopt the same view, abandon Iraq as not worth holding, Bush will not.