Your math is off. He said 10% of the military should be made up of draftees. You’ve make the military to be 10% the size of the entire population. Since he calls for 10% of the military being made up of draftees, the proper number to use to determine how many people to draft is the entire size of the military, a subset of the population.
Yes I recognized my lack of reading comprehension in post 38. 
You can man a national defense force (emphasis on “defense”) with drafted citizens. You can maintain an empire or a quasi-empire of global strategic commitments with a volunteer professional army. What does not work very well for long is trying to maintain an empire with drafted citizens. We now have a gigantic peacetime military that I’m amazed doesn’t raise the howling shade of Thomas Jefferson in protest. We have it because the government felt America needed to be a quasi-empire, Congress agreed, and the American people went along with it. It’s pretty much exactly what Rome went through after the Punic Wars, when the Militia was replaced by the Legions. (And the implications of that historical analogy scare the crap out of me). While I see the point the OP is trying to make, I don’t think you can reverse cause and effect the way he’s hoping: you can’t make the US stop trying to run the world by forcing the military to include disgruntled conscripts.
Thomas Jefferson initiated our first foreign military adventure.
If someone wants to be in the military, you don’t need the draft to get him, do you?
Man, I don’t know how I missed not only the first correction of that, but also your response. My apologies.
You’d think that, but in many cases you’d be wrong. Plenty of young people who would never even consider entering the military an option would still do the best job they possibly could if they found themselves in uniform. If you don’t get into the college you want, are you going to purposely flunk out of the one you do go to? If you don’t get your dream job, are you going to be a lousy worker? I mean, it’s not as if most 18-year-olds know what they want to do with their lives anyway.
What a military force needs more than anything else, is overachievers; and the think about overachievers is that they don’t stop overachieving, no matter where they are. They can’t help themselves.
It’s a good question. Thinking of me personally…I wanted to be a few different things, just because I didn’t volunteer for the military, doesn’t equal I would be opposed to being apart of it if I was drafted. I think it would have had a positive influence on my life and given me a lot better understanding of what I do now. I could only do one thing (or so I thought) and decided not to enlist.
This wouldn’t apply to everyone of course, which is why I kind of left it open ended. So, conscription =/ disgruntled (although it very well could). Minor point really.
deleted
I wonder how many Vietnam-type wars we would have, if the children of senators, cabinet officers, the rich, etc., had to serve? take Vietnam: only one Harvard man died in Vietnam, no Yale men. The elite (like the McGeorge Bundys, Rober MacNamaras, Kennedys, etc, are al to wiling to send otherpeople’s sons and aughtersoff to die. I wonder how many of these pele would be willing to send their own?
Here’s the question. If we have a standing draft, what is the deterrence factor of having it? It will, in reasonably short periods of time become ‘the natural order of things.’ And then we will lose the great public shock of starting a draft for an unpopular war. All we’ll have to do is expand the normal state of affairs a bit.
In short, why would a standing draft result in less adventurism, money spent, and so on?
Because instead of “Soccer Moms”, the most powerful voting block in the country would become “Soldier Moms (and Dads).” And what that block will want more than anything is for their kids to come home safely and frequently. I doubt you’ll hear much “come home with your shield or on it” from American parents - more like “come home with your shield or by God, my congressman will be hearing from me.”
That block will be at the very most 10% of the electorate- not that powerful. And, a certain % will be happy to have their kids in service.
First of all, 10% is a pretty strong voting block; besides, they’re joined by people who’s children might be draft, whose children will be drafted once they reach 18, and people who were once drafted themselves. The bottom line is that leaders will have to explain why every single death was neccessary, without falling back on lines like “they chose to risk their lives.”
Second of all, being proud of your child and not wanting him or her to die are hardly mutually exclusive thoughts. I mean, I know my son will be drafted someday, and I’d like to see him serve in a combat unit - but din’t even think of telling me that I will accept (God forbid) his death in battle.
The military’s job is to be the most efficient and effective at performing their mission. It is not to be a political check on foreign policy. Anything you do to hamper the military from that role is counter productive, and drafting unwilling and/or less capable soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines reduces the effectiveness of the military.
I’d rather deal with political problems in the political realm, and not politicize the makeup of the armed forces.
This notion is unworkable. If we had the political will to institute a draft as a check on future military adventurism, we’d have the political will to refrain from military adventurism in the first place.
Plus, a random draft that only affects a small number of citizens is profoundly unfair. If we need a draft then everyone should be drafted and have to put in 2 years of service (3 years for conscientious objectors). No college deferments, no deferments due to dependents, no medical deferments, no gender deferments, no nothing.
The only problem with this is paying room and board for millions of 18 year old draftees who are out playing soldier rather than doing something productive like going to school.
So how about this. If you’re against military adventurism, vote against military adventurers and advocate against military adventurism on the merits. If that won’t work, then tricking people into it won’t work either.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you’re right, and that the relatives of those drafted would become a powerful political force.
Why would they bother using that political power to muck about with foreign policy when they could just end the draft?
“Mr. Kennedy? Please report for duty.”
“What? Why?”
“Well, your father won the election, so if you’d please pack your things…”
“Then make him serve!”
You do realize that Prince William went to Iraq, right? And it wasn’t a cushy spot either. Lots of US Senators’ kids are in the infantry et al. as well.
Last time I checked, “playing” soldier was pretty damn productive.
OP, you’re making all kinds of unfounded assumptions. First, that poor people are the only people that join (as you’ve had pointed out to you). Second, that the rich have political clout (Who put Obama in office? Hint: Not the rich). Third, that the wars that turned out so poorly shouldn’t have been fought at all. Let’s not forget- the vast majority of the country supported the Iraq War in the beginning. Fourth, that having a politician’s judgment compromised by personal investment is a good thing.
If you want to make the military ineffective and difficult to use, just disband it.
What do soldiers produce?
I admit that soldiers are necessary, but they don’t produce goods and services, rather they exist to prevent other guys from ruining our goods and services. And if every 18 year old kid is in the military they aren’t producing useful things like Chalupas or Buicks, and they aren’t training to produce useful things. Rather they’re training to destroy useful things, the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. And when everything goes perfectly in a soldier’s life the best he can say is that he didn’t have to do what he was trained to do, thank God, because today nobody needed killing and nothing needed breaking.
Don’t make me quote General Sherman’s West Point speech…
Obviously there won’t be a draft unless the majority of the population felt there was a need for a draft. Saying you need a large military is not the same thing as saying that said military can be used recklessly.