This reflects the fact that the US military has learned how to carry on a substantial conflict without large numbers of casualties.
That sounds like a great achievement. But I think it's the problem.
There shouldn't be wars that can be run by a relatively small number of volunteers. That is the problem.
WWII and the US Civil War had drafts.
I wish I could find some cartoons that I remember from fairly soon after 9/11, about the dread people had that we were headed straight to hell in the military response.
I remember them as profoundly different from what you might see today with a left-wing slant, exactly because of the general sense of unity and nonpartisan feeling. Foreseeing the obvious subsequent events meant being against seemingly everyone and not just the red or blue tribe.
My recollection (of what I read more recently) is that only one congressperson voted against war in Iraq.
I think you underestimate the effect of a draft on unit morale. Units can become more undisciplined because commanders have limited recourse for transgressions and people dont want to be there in the first place. Imagine if you and your coworkers were uprooted to perform some difficult, manual, potentially life threatening task. Not by choice, but by conscription; what do you think organizational morale (and productivity) would be like? I’d much rather be with people who chose that path.
>I just think the problems should have been attributed to the war being fought and not the fact of the draft.
And yet you recognize the premium Western cultures put on personal agency. The irony of your above statement is that in a “popular and just” war (if such a thing exists), there’s no need for a draft because ranks will be filled with volunteers. If you’re old enough, you probably remember the long lines at recruiting centers on Sept. 12, 2001.