The Great Draft Dodge
 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magaz...dodge-20141212

:hmm2:

I may be wrong, but the last time I remember a British Army victory parade (in the best Victorian tradition) was following the Falklands. But when they're sent to enforce some strategic political aim in a territory not actually owned by or closely related to us, the attitude of the general public seems to be that, oh well, they're just off to their nine-to-fives again.

I think if the Royal Marines expelled an invasion force from the Isle of Wight, or the USMC ejected one from, say, Florida, then we would see our tickertape parades again. But these Global involvements, reflecting the will and decisions of so many different allies, are too big and complex for the average man in the street to comprehend.

Despite this, we still cherish this idea of a "volunteer" Army as being an essential, I suppose because it hopefully reflects the consent of the general population.

Post WWII most wars are far away and typically do not have a direct collective effect on the general population at home. Unlike WWII where the effect and consequence was very clear.

Modern wars seem routine and typically the population plays little or no direct role. Modern media allows war to be something seen on TV or a routine like the rest of the nightly talking head. As a result people either feel apathy and others see the war on the TV or on YouTube and its vicarious entertainment something to see from a safe vantage point.

I've never bought into a professional military being better than a conscription military. If the wars we've won are any indication we were better with conscripts, they got that crap done so they could go home.

A professional force also helps the powers that be to be able to do any crap "they" want because the population just doesn't mind so much when it's not their children in the soup.

Despite the current rosy nostalgia about it, the draft was never democratic and equitable, although some draft era laws have been more evenhanded than others. Draft laws are written by politicians, draft board members are chosen by politicians, and because domestic politics intrude on every process touched by officeholders, some benefit from the ways the laws are written and enforced, and others do not.

The World War II draft was perhaps our most just draft, but even there, the undereducated and poor were most likely to be the front line riflemen and cannon-fodder, and the well-educated and rich were more likely to find themselves in the support services, logistics, or serving in one of the dozens of civilian organizations that ran the war effort.

I have a feeling that if the draft returned, it wouldn't be long before you heard that old refrain. Rich man's war. Poor man's fight.

It appears that the mandatory draft helped make opposition to the Vietnam War more virulent, while having no such effect on WWII. If we grant that WWII was a "just" war and Vietnam "injust," our experience would be consistent with the idea that mandatory conscription makes foreign policy more democratic. But there are a lot of assumptions in there which could unravel pretty easily. For one, the Vietnam war lasted over 10 years - longer than US involvement in WWII. So, if the draft helped end the Vietnam War, it certainly didn't do it very efficiently.

Another problem with professional armies is that they are usually hurting for recruits (at least over here and I believe it's even worse in the US IIRC). So they have to lower their standards and in some cases even have to accept criminals into the forces just to get enough bodies in uniforms. Not the guys you want to represent your country in foreign lands.

Slovenia used the old Yugoslav conscript system until 2003 when the final generation went into the reserves and an all profesional standing army was incorporated. A volunteer reserve force is maintained to augment the profesional troops.

The sentiment though is that it was a mistake. Conscripts went to basic training pol half a year when they reached 18. There was some deviation due to schools but by the time you were 20 you were in the reserves. It also means that by the time you were 20 the army made a man out of a spoiled brat. Schools and parents are appalling when it comes to teaching practical skills.
I know people that couldn't start a fire with matches, newspaper and a hatchet :dead:

When I was a kid, we knew some brothers who must've been pyromaniacs: they regularly set fire to the farmer's fields over back of us and one day, after they'd bragged they could light a fire anywhere, someone told them they couldn't light one in the middle of the stream where we often spent time.

They rose to the challenge: building a raft, piling it with brushwood then setting fire to it in mid-stream.

I resemble that remark!! http://i.imgur.com/nsHyNRK.gif

Don't tell me that cop training didn't include a quick survival course.
And how do you grill, man.

You simply get married....women are indoctrinated at birth you know :know:

They were.
Today you're lucky if you meet one that can fry an egg :/\\!!

My daughter almost fits into that category :)

Why would a police officer need a survival course? It's not like they're going out in the wilderness for days on end.:hmm2:

Ours go as part of Alpine rescue services.
Regular beat cops are used to search more easy terrain while professional Alpine rescuers focus on the more dangerous areas.