What is biggest difference between voluntary army and draftee army?

[kentuck]

Of course, in a draftee army, there were volunteers as well. I don't know that we ever had an "all-draftee" Army? We have always had a number of volunteers since I can remember.

In what ways does a draftee "drag down" a military unit? In what way is an "all-volunteer" unit superior? Is it that since they volunteered for whatever assignment they get, they cannot complain. After all, they volunteered. If they are sent to Iraq 4 times , too bad. They volunteered. Is this really a better military? One that is subservient and never questions their superiors? What kind of military are we paying for?

And we are paying for their salaries as they "defend" our country. And they will say they are defending us against the "terrorists" in Iraq because they have been told to say that. And they would never question what they are told. We are just not appreciative of them putting their lives on the line, some will say. I say bullshit.

[Coyote_Bandit]

1. The Biggest Difference

between a voluntary army and a draftee army is the number and range of people personally invested and impacted by the military affairs of this country.

[sanskritwarrior]

2. This is in response to you

and I earlier isn't it?

A draftee army does not want to be there in many cases. A volunteer army is people that decided to join of their own free will without the state forcing them. If you do not support state sanctioned murder, why do you support state sanctioned servitude.

It sounds like you have a beef with the volunteer army if they do not question things the way that you do. They are not you, they will do things differently, you are more than free to comment, but I don't really agree with your premise. But that's why I love democracy, we are both free to say what we want.

[kentuck]

3. Personally, I believe the military budget should be cut in half...

immediately. Also, I think there are too many general officers. Many of them should be involuntarily retired. I think their pensions are too high. I do not think anyone should be permitted to retire at 37 or 38 years with full pension, military or otherwise. I think we have a duty to defend our nation against enemies, both foreign and domestic. I think the military sometimes imagines themselves as separate from the people that pay their salaries. That they are somehow superior to the average Joe. I think the military has bloated out of control. No nation on earth should be spending half/trillion dollars per year to defend the present threats to our nation. I respect the job the military does but I don't think it should be a "job". It should be a "duty". I could go on.....

[Pavulon]

5. Why?

If a person puts in 20 years with the military, the fire department or both they are due their pension. I will retire as soon as possible. If it is at 40 so be it. Not in the military, but if I hit the jackpot I am off to cabo.

Aerospace should continue to be developed. At no point should the US be "behind" any nation in operable technology. Most military people I met were part time people like me. They worked in all types of jobs.

The full time guys were just normal people. You probably work with a few retired military folks.

[kentuck]

6. Because I see a lot of scams...

Or what I consider scams. It seems that everybody has a scam to get a disability for one reason or another and are looking for ways to sap the taxpayer, no matter if their injury was when they fell off a barstool over in Guam...Just my own personal opinion...

[Pavulon]

7. I never saw that, saw theft

but that is "normal". It was my view that the army has ways to screw me over that I had not even thought of so I chose not to engage in some of the bullshit. People did take stuff but it was little stuff (still a problem), maps, compass, etc.

No one I was around stole nvgs, weapons, etc.

Broke rules against booze, no booze on any station is a joke.

[Hope springs eternal]

22. why does the US have to be ahead?

other countries will wanrt to have a say in that. It was the space race (as well as nuclear) that ultamitley bankrupted the USSR.

[Pavulon]

4. Check with the IDF

everyone serves there. It works there because everyone wants to serve. I think they can opt out if they wish.

Conscript armies are not the answer right now.

A draft is not needed by the military, as a former guardsman I would not want to serve with somebody would REALLY not want to be there.

The military has not requested a draft.

A draftee is a person who was pressed into service. Only in the event of a world war does the us require a draft. At that point, like ww2, events would probably make one unnecessary.

Unit cohesion works on the premise that everyone shared the same experiences and are part of the same system. I could think of a split in the armed services between those who enlisted and those who were drafted.

Iraq is another issue. However there is no reason to screw up the army because of a screwed up war plan.

[Ron Green]

8. I think the biggest difference is that of "service" vs. "contract."

The idea that anyone can opt out of service to a country that provides us with our way of life is a divisive one, in my opinion. The "all-volunteer" military is too much of a hired mercenary force for my taste, a breeding ground for the kind of "hoo-ah!" attitude that blinds the ranks to the truth that their mission is not always a just one.

In my experience, drafted troops serving alongside enlisted ones were just as competent and patriotic, and much more willing to question injustice within the military or society at large. A healthier mix, I believe, than what we have now.

Cheaper, too: No $40,000 enlistment bonuses.

[kentuck]

9. I agree...

We are all in this together. If the country needs defending, we should all be ready.

[TahitiNut]

11. I agree.

We're going from a class system to a caste system, imho. How long before we have a "warrior caste" ... call 'em Sikhs. Heaven forbid the Brahmans get their hands dirty in the military.

[hack89]

12. The problem is that the military is too small ..

to make it work. You would draft such a small proportion of eligible men and women that I can't see how it would be done fairly. Unless you are arguing for a significant increase in the size of the military, which I don't think is the case.

[hack89]

10. Biggest difference with a high tech military

is that they are not in long enough to be trained and become experts in modern weapons and tactics. Modern warfare puts many decisions and pressure on lower level enlisted and it takes more then the two years that most draftees serve to get really good at it.

Conscript armies are by definition less capable because just when they are experienced enough to be useful their enlistments end.

[kentuck]

13. Then if we get attacked by another high-tech Army...

we would be at a disadvantage? Oh, is there not another high-tech Army?

[hack89]

16. We have decided to replace manpower ..

with technology. That is how we fight and win wars. That is how we fight wars with minimal loss of US lives.

[Cleita]

14. The way I remember it is that you were drafted into the army

only. All the other branches of the services were volunteer. If you didn't want to be drafted into the army, then you volunteered for the Navy, Air Force, Marines, the National Guard or the Coast Guard. Then the army would take you off their conscription list.

[Lars39]

20. That didn't stop them from shuffling people from one branch to another, though.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Good Question. My Guesses:

I don't expect that it's actually been studied scientifically, but I'd expect that conscripted armies work well in "good" wars, poorly in "bad" wars. The US military had mostly conscripts in WWII, and it performed incredibly. The Israeli Defense Forces are conscript, and they were fantastic when they were fighting to preserve the existence of their country. I can imagine that draftees in a poorly-conceived or poorly-executed war would not be eager beavers.

Having a draft during a "bad" war ensures protests and riots. If we'd had a draft during the current Iraq Clusterfuck, you can bet that America's youth would be out in the streets.

In thinking about this, I'm beginning to suspect that Rangel is correct on re-establishing a draft - it would force the government to behave correctly. Can you imagine how Mr. Bush, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Edwards, and the rest of that Chickenhawk gang would behave if their own kids were getting shot at? Can you imagine the rioting in the streets if middle class kids were the majority of the IED fodder?

[hack89]

19. Considering how small the military is now ..

and how much larger the pool of eligible draftees are (adding women for one), how do you institute a fair draft with significantly enlarging the military? Such a small proportion of eligible draftees would be chosen I am not sure it would serve your intended function of restraining the use of the military.

[jody]

17. One group volunteers for "involuntary servitude", other is drafted for "involuntary servitude".

Both can obey orders and die for their country or be imprisoned/executed for refusing to obey such orders.

[stillcool]

18. Successful advertising?

We all know the hook to the masses is the chance they could reach a status in life otherwise unreachable. Those that don't bite, need to be brought in with a net.

[zeemike]

21. There are more than just a few differences

The most notable of which someone already mentioned and that is the difference between duty and service. In the conscripted service we serve as a duty to country instead of as a payed killer of the brown people of the world.
But that is only the moral part
In the conscripted military the Army had it's own cooks mess halls and equipment to feed the troops and they did so efficiently using the newly enlisted people as mess cooks and for cleaning.
Now we pay Halaburton and others to provide it all at an alarming price and if they all went on strike we would be sol.

The old is not always worse than the new. In this case we have lost a great deal, and all for the sake of keeping the kids of rich and influential people from having to serve along side of the poor ones.
I am with Charley Wrangle, he knows what he is talking about.