Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Lawmakers Push For End To Draft Registration In US [View all]happyslug
(14,779 posts)Now, in 1968 that support went from over 50% to under 50% for the first time, and by the end of 1968 Johnson was already pulling US troops out (Nixon would expand on this in his "Vitalization" program). The reason for the withdraw was that support had dropped below 50% and more and more mothers wanted their sons BACK HOME. Thus the US could NOT keep its troops in Vietnam to much after it lost 50% support for the war.
Please note, support for the rapid movement into Afghanistan was quite high, but they was never more then 50% support for the war in Iraq. Thus both wars were only possible with an all volunteer army, a draftee army would have deteriorated rapidly if it had been used in either conflict for reason set forth below.
The same thing happened in the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, support for the war fell even as the Communist pushed their agenda in the Soviet media why the Soviet Forces had to go. Thus the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan after just under 10 years of fighting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan
American forces were in Vietnam just over eight years, 1965-1973 (I am talking about direct ground forces, "Advisor's" were in Vietnam from the 1950s to its fall in 1975, just as Soviet Advisor's were in Afghanistan from the 1950s to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
US Forces in Afghanistan is now in its 12th year, two more years then the Soviets in Afghanistan and four more years then US involvement in Vietnam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(1978%E2%80%93present)#Islamic_Republic_and_NATO
Why has the US been able to keep forces in Afghanistan but could not do the same with Vietnam? The biggest single reason is that the US forces in Vietnam were subject to the Draft, and thus many young people (and their parents) saw themselves as potential cannon fodder and objected to the war given its lack of any clear goal (The actual goal of Vietnam from Truman onward was to prevent its fall during their administration, they all knew it would fall, for a clear majority of the people of Vietnam supported the Communists, but none of them could afford leaving another country fall to the "communist yoke", thus vague reasons were given for no one wanted to say, they just wanted to delay what will happen. More to do with US domestic Politics then anything to do with actual reasons to be in Vietnam).
Korea was a little bit different, the strategic goal was clear (but became muddle after the US decided it was better to settle for the 38th parallel as a border then risk expanding the war in Manchuria, which was a huge risk if they took North Korea).
Now, in Vietnam and Korea, the Majority of Americans supported the war (while no longer true for Vietnam after 1968, was the rule between 1965 and 1968). The rapid deterioration of the US Army (followed by the Navy and the Marines) after 1968 had more to do with this decline for support for the war in Vietnam then any other single reason (the US Joint Chief of Staffs did a study in the early 1970s, which said the draft was the better option then an all volunteer force, given the Man power needs of the US Military at that time).
Anyway, the US government leadership, not only wanted a Military that could defeat the Soviets, but also wanted a military to support expeditionary forces to other areas of conflict. The problem became clear as the 1970s progressed, the all volunteer service was failing, but the greater dependence on the German Military (and its draft) more then compensated for the decline, A Soviet attack in Europe became less and less of a threat as the Chinese and the Soviets diverged, thus the US decided to concentrate on its Special forces and other elements of expeditionary type units (including airborne units), that were NO affected with the overall decline in the average enlistee of the time period. These Special and Elite forces had always depended more on volunteers then draftees, thus less affected by the general decline in the typical enlistees of the 1970s and 1980s.
With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US Military declined about a 1/3, which permitted the Military to be more selective about who it would enlist, thus improving the pool of enlistees. There was some concern about a lack of enlistees as employment went to its lowest level in the late 1990s, but that reversed with the War on Terror (Which increased overall enlistees) and the subsequent increase in the unemployment ranks (Which lead to more people opting for the Military).
Remember the Military of the post 9/11 period was only 2/3 of the size of the Military under Reagan when it came to actual people needed, and even then by 2004-2007 period the Military was only able to get enough recruits by lowering standards (i.e. permitting more GED students to enlist as the number of High School Graduates declined).
The above is supported by the study of other nations, when a war has support from the people of a nation, the nation will revert to the draft and people will serve well, even if they are drafted as opposed to enlisting. On the other hand, if the people do NOT support the war, the draftee army will go into quick decline and have to be withdrawn. In the US the US Army had declined so much between 1968 and 1972, that it had to withdraw from Vietnam or faced collapse. These same soldiers would have fought well if the Soviets had launched an attack on Western Europe. It was so bad that as time went on more and more troops in Vietnam were technically "volunteers" but they were even affected by the overall decline in the Military.
The main reason for the decline is the enlistees knew they had support of the people back home as support for the war declined (and at the same time, would fought well against a Soviet Attack, for there was massive support in the US for such a defense).
When, support for a war declines in a Nation that uses Volunteers, such decline are slower and harder to see. The first set of declines is that people who would have enlisted before the war, stop enlisting (this was seen in the African American Communities, huge source of recruits before 9/11, but clear and significant drop since 9/11, thus today's Army is much more Rural Based then it was in the 1990s). A second set of changes are people NOT reenlisting (a problems "Solved" with how people had enlisted since the 1970s, you now enlist for 8 years, of which technically you agree to active service for 3-4 years, but can be called up for service for the rest of the 8 years if the military decides it needs you, thus many soldiers who wanted out after 9/11 found themselves given a choice, re-enlist with a huge bonus, or get called back into service and serve the same time period without the bonus, what a "Free Choice" that was).
Now since the economic collapse of 2008, you no longer hear of the problems of finding recruits or having people re-enlist that you heard before 2008. The ending of the war in Iraq helped reduced the need for so many enlistees and those soldiers who wanted out, the Military can now afford to leave for Iraq was the big consumer of troops (Afghanistan also "consumes" troops, but not as many as Afghanistan, the US has more Allies to pull troops from in Afghanistan and with the withdraw from Iraq, those troops are now free for use in Afghanistan). Thus the problem of finding recruits seems no longer to be a major problem, but again more to the drop in the need for troops more then the effectiveness of finding new recruits.
The big advantage of the Draft over an All Volunteer forces, is seen between the US involvement in Vietnam, the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan and the present US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, once support for the war drops below 50% of the people, the ability to fight the war soon ends. With a volunteer army, that decline can be delayed 5-10 years. The decline will still occur, but not to the extent as with a draftee army and not as quick. That is the lesson of these three wars and the differences between a draftee army and a all volunteer army.