Why the draft would cause more casualties...

Simple economic, you know, the stuff that Supply Siders love to embrace when they talk about markets and taxes, blah blah blah...

So take off your thinking cap and look at the world through the green eye-shades of a Supply Sider...

If you have to go out and expend a lot of energy and resources into recruiting soldiers, you are naturally, according to Supply Siders, going to value those soldiers more simply because of the high rate of investment you have in your troops. Therefor, in the supply siders world, you put them in harms way as little as possible. You take less chances, forgo the riskier pushes, avoid direct combat as much as possible...

Literally, you are seeking more bang for your buck...

Now say you have at your disposal a whole bunch of soldiers that don't cost as much to train because you know you can always get more soldiers. Draftees are not as valuable as recruits...

So since they are less valuable, because your recruiting costs are way down, you can take more risks with the troops, put them in harm's way more often, use them with reckless abandon ...

I can't say for sure but I will bet that if their is a draft, the campaigns waged by the US would get far more deadly and produce more casualties than we can imagine...

Look back on history...

When there was conscription, casualties were heavy, commanders took more risk...

When you cobble together your Armed Forces with volunteers, the commanders are going to avoid causalities as much as possible...

Just think about it...

I have...

I know that whatever I have that I've worked hard for....I value more, and am more careful with...

But anything that has come easily, I'm more careless with it...

And the same applies to the military, I think...

I can see it...

They would think that there's a steady supply of cannon fodder...

And so the pressure to be more careful would be diminished...

Presto chango...more casualties...

Do you really expect a draft?

I'm thinking they won't do this, simply because it would be so unpopular...

The laws are still, from what I understand, on the books...

But it would still be a mistake, IMHO....

However, one that would benefit us...probably...

a Congressional vote to reactivate it.

Right after Viet Nam, Congress wasn't about to give any President the power to bring back the draft by himself.

Now Bush can call out the Various State Militias that still exists (Most states have only the National Guard, but some states still retain non-national Guard state Militia units dating back to the Civil War). Under the Constitution Bush could technically call them into service. In addition Bush could also call up the "Reserve Militia" consisting of all males between the ages of 18 and 45 who are NOT a member of the Regular forces or the National Guard.

The problem with such a call up, Bush will have to ask Congress for money to pay them. Unless it is something that must be done today (And Bush will prefer to rely on Volunteers helping their neighbors then calling such neighbors into military formation those people do NOT even known they are members of), I see Bush preferring to ask Congress for permission to Draft then to do the above. The Draft is on the books and sets up all of the COSTS involved with using the Draft. Calling up the Reserve Militia (Which has never been done) has no precedent and the question of HOW to pay them is a question up to Congress alone (unless Bush uses discretionary funding to do so, but there is only so much such funding).

Thus Theoretically Bush can call up the Reserve Militia, but then Bush would have to go back to Congress to fund the Call up and to pay the men mobilized and to feed, equip and house such men (and exclude those people needed at home, a further complication). On the other hand Bush can ask Congress for permission to draft, and if it is granted the Draft law sets up how to fund it, house the men, equip the men and exclude those people needed at home. Asking Congress for permission to Draft is the easier way to expand the Army then calling into service the "Reserve Militia".

Congress must approve it.

http://www.sss.gov/seq.htm

The draft picks up the accident-prone and the clumsy along with everybody else.
Accidents with guns and explosives tend to have a high fatality rate.

Draftees get minimal training.

Inability to perform is more likely to be interpreted as "not trying hard enough" or even deliberate insubordination.

For example the heavy losses of WWII and the Civil War were supported by a Draftee army, but that was because the US needed that many men to fight (These Armies were more Universal Service Armies than anything else). During the Civil War the North did NOT adopt the Draft till 1863, and while most casualties occurred after that date, it was easy to get a deferment (if the official deferments did NOT apply, one could hire a substitute, preferable a veteran who was excluded from eh draft since he had already served, many historians believe the Draft was a way to fund bonuses for the re-enlistments of such veterans, since the bonus of the first year of the war had ended, thus the troops were still more recruits then their were draftees even by 1865).

WWII was the next big draftee army (WWI army losses were less than Korea and Vietnam). Enlistments was high in 1941 but FDR ordered ALL recruits to be draftees after 1942. Thus you could NOT enlist even if you wanted to after 1942 (This was to make sure the Army would be a Universal Service Army). WWI losses were around 50,000 men but had a huge number of enlistees, much more then Korea and Vietnam, but all three wars cost the US about 50,000 dead Soldiers.

In both WWII and the Civil War draftees were used, but the Army was fighting a really dangerous enemy, who had more then enough men to stop a US army that relied on enlistees only. The Draft brought in more men and better quality men than enlistments would have (One out of every 8 men were denied being drafted do to "poor health" do to the lack of medical care and/or adequate food during the Great Depression, this high rate re-enforced the need for Welfare for the decades after WWII, the great Depression had wrecked the generation that had to fight WWII). American Equipment was inferior (except for Artillery and rifles. Artillery was used so much that the Germans considered the US "Artillery mad" but excessive use of Artillery was the best way to reduce Infantry losses.

My point is if you look at the war that the US had fought with a Draftee Army, the tactics was the same as if it had been enlistees. The Army knew excessive losses would turn the Country against the war, so excessive losses were avoided. The US could have invaded France in 1943, but would have had to fight a stronger Germany with a weaker army. I believe the US would still have won, but with much higher lost of life. It was decided to build up Supplies in Britain for a Year, ship in more troops and watch the Red Army destroy more of the German Army (and to help destroy the German Army with the Italian Campaign). By t he time the US hit France on June 6th, 1944 we were facing a much weaker enemy, they beach fortifications were stronger, but once beyond the Beaches France fell within 3 months Except for cities the Germans retreated into. By October allied forces were on or nearing the Rhine.

The draft is used when a country needs a large army. Such a large army becomes part of the national being, it is NOT something separate from the Country, it is the Country. The chief problem with the Draft is this view, a draftee Army is lousy army to used to conquer another Country. As part of the Nation, a Draftee Army wants to go home after the war, and the nation WANTS the Draftee Army home. A draftee Army is a lousy Army to occupy hostile country (The US treatment of Japan and Germany after WWII was as much a product of the US Draftee Army being incapable of what was needed destroy the industrial capability of those two countries as any policy of the US Government).

On the other hand a Volunteer army is much more capable to occupy a country against that country's will. The French used its Marines and Foreign Legions for Colonial duties, leaving its main French Army in France. The reason for this was the French main in Army was a draftee army, while the Marines and Foreign Legions were Volunteers. Thus France was reluctant to send its Main Army overseas, but more then willing to send its Marines and Legionaries. The reason was the Make up of each, the Draftee Main army was seen by the Citizens of France as being part of France and only exist to defend France. On the other hand the Volunteers were viewed as people who had agreed to serve and thus NOT part of France (as was the Army), just a means for France to project its mirage abroad (and viewed as part of the Colonial expansion of the 1800s that France participated in).

England's Peacetime army was viewed much like the French Marines and Foreign Legion. something to project power but NOT part of the Country, just a tool to project power. When the British army was expanded for WWI and WWII this changed and th British ARmy became part of the "nation" but this view ended as the Draft ended and the British Army ceased to be part of the British "Nation" and became just an arm of British Foreign Policy.

This is the difference between a Draftee Army and a Volunteer Army, does the Country as a whole, view that army as part of the Country or just a way for the Government to project power?

Please note, the above applies to "modern" Armies that are trained to used modern Tactics (i.e the troops are "empowered" to make combat decisions for their are in the best position to make such decisions, the Officers are to guide, lead and direct, but NOT to command the men in actual Combat. If the Army use of Draftee is more rigid, under the direct observation of Officers, such units tend to be less effective, but are preferred if the Government does NOT trust the men it is drafting. This was (and is) common in Third War countries where the officer corp do NOT reflect the will of the people (i.e the army's main duty is to keep down the peasants and poor of the Country, who the Government view as the real enemy of the Government). Such an Army can keep the poor down since it denies the poor the ability to organized, and this can defeat any peasant revolt do to each such revolt being small). Such an Army is useless against an real foreign Invaders or a nationwide revolt, but can keep the poor in line until a foreign invasion or a nationwide revolt. This Type of Draftee army is the one most often compared to "volunteer armies" but it is a false comparison. Such Draftee armies rarely face a true Universal Service Draftee Armies, and when it does such dragooned Armies are easy to defeat. Such Dragooned Armies are common in Third World Countries, they are NOT a Universal Service Army and as such ineffective. The real choice is between a Draftee Universal Service Army and a Volunteer/Mercenary Army like we have now. The Mercenary army is failing for the Iraqi opposition is to large for it, the US either has to leave Iraq or send in more troops. The US does not want to leave, but has no more troops to send.

Thus the talk of a return to the Draft, more troops are needed and the only way to get them is to draft. The problem with the Draft is how do you address the following questions:

1. We need Infantrymen more than any other type of Soldier, thus we need MEN more than women. How do you exclude Women and keep the men happy about that?

2. If you give Veterans preference to men who have served, how do you compensate Women for the fact they were NOT drafted? What about Women who tried to Enlist and could not?

3. How do you expand this preference to the Civilian work place? This was NOT done after WWII or Vietnam, but during both time periods the Government jobs was expanding and immigration had not yet come to today's level. After WWI when this last came up, it was one of the Reasons Congress overcame the objections of business and reduced immigration, so that they were more jobs for veterans (and the jobs paid higher do to less people competing for those jobs).

4. How do you compensate the Collages for all the Students they do NOT have while the Draft is in place? While the men are away, women will still go to Collage, but you will still be missing 1/2 of the present Students.

5. Increase opposition to this war. The Draft will increase opposition to this war, and that will have to be addressed.

But you make some valid points...

However, you neglect to mention that the draft continued even during peace time...

Remember Elvis and his stint in the Army...

Also, the methods of warfare have changed dramatically since WW11 and even from Vietnam...

I still believe that if the US had a draft, the commanders and tacticians would be willing to throw more men into harms way than they are with a volunteer based force...

One telling point is that the Marines, from what I understand, have relaxed the educational achievement part of the entrance requirements. You no longer have to be a high school graduate to be one ot the few and the proud...

Also, the Army is expending far more resources in recruiting than they would like...

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.