Sorry, I should have clarified my point that the all-volunteer force 
concept was instituted in the post-World War II era in 1973. I was 
responding to an earlier posting that spoke of that time frame. Before 
1940, except during times of war, the standing Army was very 
small--small in absolute terms and in relationship to other nations. The 
Constitutional provisions speaking of "raising armies" and "maintaining 
a navy" were taken pretty seriously by the government in those days. 
There was little need to maintain a huge standing army until the Cold 
War. So, the role of the military and its relationship to civilian 
society has taken on a somewhat different role in the last half century. 
Not quite sure of your point about social engineering. If the 
desegregation of the Armed Forces was social engineering and if the GI 
Bill was social engineering, I think that was some of the best social 
engineering by the US Government in the 20th century. And, by the way, 
the Marines were still drafting in 1969 (and if they are going to fill 
the new quotes in this year's legislation, they may have to go to it again).

Jim Hershman

Scott McPhail wrote:

>A few thoughts on the recent discussions on the nature of America’s armed
>forces.
>
> “The all-volunteer military was not instituted until 1973” Well no it
>wasn’t. The American armed forces from the very beginning were conceived as
>a volunteer force and only in a few rare occurrences in American history
>when the United States has needed a huge influx of soldiers has that policy
>been changed. Conscription was only instituted for two years during the
>Civil War (on the Federal side), for less than two years during the First
>World War, and from 1940 till 1973 with a one year break in 1947. More time
>has passed since the “beginning” of the all-volunteer armed forces in 1973
>than elapsed during this longest time period of American conscription. And
>this leaves out the whole issue of the US Marine Corps which has been a
>volunteer force since its inception except for the year 1968 when I believe
>20,000 draftees were funneled into the service.
>The draft has never been a popular concept in American history. In the Civil
>War it was met by widespread resistance including violence. Their was
>widespread opposition to it during the First World War that was only
>mitigated by the short time of its use and the ruthless suppression of
>dissent by the Wilson administration. Fatigue had begun to crop into the
>public attitudes about the draft toward the end of the Second World War
>(notwithstanding its reputation as a “good war”) and the social disruption
>caused by the draft of the Sixties and early Seventies is too well know to
>have to be mentioned. (Though I suppose I just did).
>As for the fear that our professional Armed Forces are “a place for the poor
>and unfortunate who see it as "a way out" of where they are”, that has been
>the popular attitude to the “peacetime” military since  its very beginnings
>with little respect shown toward to those who would choose it as career
>except in times of national crisis. While this attitude was always less
>aimed at the officer than the enlisted man it only began to substantially
>change during the Cold War. The issue of social disconnectedness seems to be
>rather unfounded in military where the average enlistment time is, I
>believe, some four years and would hardly justify the dilution of a highly
>trained combat force with unwilling draftees or the strains on society that
>it would cause.  Of course it depends whether your goal leans more to combat
>effectiveness or instead to social engineering.
>
>                                    Scott McPhail
>  
>