Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
14. Both wars had overwhelming support among the American population
Mon Feb 25, 2013, 05:10 PM
Feb 2013

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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Seems incredibly short-sighted to me... hlthe2b Feb 2013 #1
Bring Back The Draft and We Will Have Less Wars AverageMe Feb 2013 #4
+ 10 James48 Feb 2013 #6
As I recall, the draft colorado_ufo Feb 2013 #10
DING DING DING DING DING DING !!!!!!!! groundloop Feb 2013 #13
Both wars had overwhelming support among the American population happyslug Feb 2013 #14
Bring back the Draft with no deferments and every war will require a declaration of war AverageMe Feb 2013 #21
I don't know about that... Old Troop Feb 2013 #63
Thats Charlie Rangel's argument. iandhr Feb 2013 #12
Or how about requiring military service to be eligible for Presidency or Congress? n/t alp227 Feb 2013 #15
Qualifications for Congress and Presidency are Set in the Constitution AndyTiedye Feb 2013 #18
That rule would have stopped FDR's presidential bid JustABozoOnThisBus Feb 2013 #24
FDR was assistant Secretary of the Navy in WW I. former9thward Feb 2013 #44
And Both Clintons AndyTiedye Feb 2013 #45
No. It won't. It never has. And if you think Congress will pass a fair law to not give exemptions to uppityperson Feb 2013 #19
Quite true. Today, war is out of sight out of mind for most. Some might take a quick glance at RKP5637 Feb 2013 #30
Does that end justify the means? As an undraftable older person, the idea of a draft as pampango Feb 2013 #32
+1000, just make sure the rich must sign up, too wordpix Feb 2013 #35
Make it for kids of lawmakers only, and we'll have no wars at all. sofa king Feb 2013 #39
The draft never left Fearless Feb 2013 #43
There would be so few people actually drafted hack89 Feb 2013 #55
I think the social security database is the registration. It knows ones age, gender and in most Purveyor Feb 2013 #2
I would like to see a return of the draft, but with the following caveat Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #3
Just curious... KansDem Feb 2013 #5
What would a 65 yr old be able to do really? Heck my husband is retired from the military southernyankeebelle Feb 2013 #7
Good choice James48 Feb 2013 #8
The current system Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #9
Many Would Drop Dead During Basic Training AndyTiedye Feb 2013 #17
There or the battlefield Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #20
Heart Attacks Would Claim More Lives than Enemy Fire AndyTiedye Feb 2013 #22
And how long do you think politicians would stay in office Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #34
The Politicians Who Vote for a Draft Would be Voted Out Immedidately AndyTiedye Feb 2013 #40
Drafting people Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #42
Starve the Beast AndyTiedye Feb 2013 #49
Then our corpoarte masters will simply arrange another war Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #58
How much more do you want to spend to expand the military? hack89 Feb 2013 #54
Three answers, Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #57
ok. nt hack89 Feb 2013 #60
Exactly, exceptionally well said. If, this were the case I think one would see the RKP5637 Feb 2013 #31
People with jobs, families, and Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #33
I've had war mongering republicans tell me the draft is a bad idea, requiring RKP5637 Feb 2013 #37
yes because slavery is a good thing! bowens43 Feb 2013 #53
And being a wage slave is better? Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #59
Immeasurably Better AndyTiedye Feb 2013 #62
Good on them ButterflyBlood Feb 2013 #11
Shut It Down AndyTiedye Feb 2013 #16
I agree, no bodies, no wars Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #36
This dept of 130 staff could be easily combined with VOTER registration and save states billions. Sunlei Feb 2013 #23
There's no draft in Canada, France, Germany, Australia, Japan, the UK, Sweden, pampango Feb 2013 #25
Here in South Korea men have to serve about 2 years davidpdx Feb 2013 #56
I think two years of NON military service would be great along with free college graham4anything Feb 2013 #26
edit to add-this could also be a way for immigration change-instant citizenship after 2 yrs. graham4anything Feb 2013 #27
I would prefer a 1-year term but I like the idea. The length of service could be worked out. n/t pampango Feb 2013 #28
Yup. graham4anything Feb 2013 #29
Conscription is Anti-Labor AndyTiedye Feb 2013 #41
I don't get this logic at all graham4anything Feb 2013 #50
They Wouldn't Really be Different Jobs AndyTiedye Feb 2013 #61
It's an idea and, for the record, Heywood J Feb 2013 #46
How Do You Know Who is Giving Back What and Where? AndyTiedye Feb 2013 #48
maybe that is too harsh but graham4anything Feb 2013 #51
Sure they do madokie Feb 2013 #38
If the Press Gang is revived Wolf Frankula Feb 2013 #47
These men are heros..... the draft was nothing less then legalized slavery. bowens43 Feb 2013 #52
Hell yes, bring backthe draft.... 4bucksagallon Feb 2013 #64
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Lawmakers Push For End To...»Reply #14