Not unless there are major changes in draft exemptions. Some of the serious
reasons the draft was unpopular was it focused on the poor and the
minorities who did not qualify for a multitude of exemptions. In fact it
produced the exact opposite of what you suggest with middle and upper class
whites getting married, going to college, or Russia or whereever.

I still say the draft in and of itself is wrong. But if you have to have it
at least make it somewhat equal and yes that includes women as well. No
reason they should continue to be second class citizens. It's wrong.

If society is worth saving enough will come forward, if enough do not come
forward then the society was not worth saving.

(Or you could just hire a bunch of mercenaries . . .damn . ..that's exactly
what we did isn't it!)

M.




"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:46:05 -0600, Dave wrote:


Actually, I have it on pretty good authority that our present mix of
active
duty troops and national guard is the result of a deliberate policy
change
made for that very purpose after appraising the loss of support for the
Vietnam war. The problem was an undue concentration of lower income and
black soldiers among the draftees, with the middle and upper class
whites
wangling deferments. (Remember that Howard Dean had such a back problem
he
had to spend the war years skiing in Vermont.) The determination was
made
that substantial numbers of the guard should be involved in any future
war
in order to bring involvement to Main Street.

Seriously, this is not a flame, but the above doesn't make sense to me.
I've always thought that the active/guard mix is a direct result of an all
volunteer military. It's kept lean and mean during peacetime
necessitating guard usage during a war. I would also suggest a draft
brings in a wider cross-section of the public than an all volunteer
service. Middle and upper class whites may no longer be wangling
deferments, neither to they tend to enlist.