Sunday mouthpieces all say too many tours in war zone is bad, but none admit we need a draft.

[bluedigger]

25. I joined in the first generation of the "all-volunteer" force (1982).

The draft ended nine years earlier, so I saw senior NCOs that were draftees, and many Vietnam era veterans who stayed in. A few of them were serious dumbfucks who were just coasting to retirement, but most of them were talented professionals that had found their calling. Overall, they were no better or worse than my fellow volunteers. The argument for the all volunteer force for decades was improved quality, but that is a lie. The military consumes fodder indiscriminately, tests it for ability, and places it where it will bring the most benefit. Any choice given to the recruit is just indifference on the part of the military. Draftee or volunteer, it makes no difference to the military.

I think that if we could refrain from overseas wars and occupations, a volunteer force would be fine. We could easily sustain a force for defensive purposes and maintain trade with a small and well trained military.

If we look at our history, however, peace is the exception, not the rule of our ongoing foreign policy. A draft would deter bellicosity, ensure vigorous prosecution, and limit lengthy occupations by our forces. I disagree with the premise that it unfairly targets the poor and minorities. It's true that they are less able to evade it, but the inconvenience and aggravation that it causes the middle and upper classes still works to affect public opinion and policy to the benefit of all. I volunteered, and I support a draft.