Another, potentially more realistic, way of looking at this 'cost' is through the eyes of America. Today, we value the services of these soldiers, but we realize that they volunteered for the mission. We accept their free choice, and the possible consequences, as the American Way. Thus, the cost to our conscience is lower, because when we lose these brave men and women, at least we know they went voluntarily.
When troops are conscripted, there is a higher cost on our conscience, because we realize that some will be lost who didn't want to be there in the first place. Additionally, we intuitively know that volunteers will do a better job, be more motivated and probably better trained (since they made a choice, they will stay longer in the military on average).
Additionally, we all know that the majority of the army recruits come from those in a lower income bracket. Yes, they are all brave, but additionally the military provides an opportunity and training that would not otherwise be available. When you start to randomly take recruits from all income classes, you have more opposition to the process, and more involvement from those affected.
With a draft, which I oppose, there would be more involvement and resistance to war by the population. For Iraq, that would have been a definite plus, but not for Afghanistan, and possibly not for a future war. People should be more involved in the approach to war, and the decision making process, but the potential drafting of our children adds too much of an emotional factor to the debate, imo.
If we really believe we need to, we should expand the current military. Iraq has shown how pitifully thin their ranks are, and how wrong Rumsfelds 'lean and mean' strategy was. |
