Quote:
Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b
I'm kind of mixed on this. The US has used the draft for much of its modern history -- most of the Greatest Generation were draftees.
But when I was in the Army, the general consensus among us was that we didn't want to be fighting alongside draftees. We didn't want someone backing us up who hadn't paid proper attention to his training because he had no wish to be there. We felt they were more likely to panic due to that lesser attention to detail. We generally felt that modern draftees, with the difference in work ethic and national spirit felt in our day, might even be dangerous to have around.
Hell, you have a hard enough time with troops who join the Army and then find out that they really aren't cut out for it.
|
While I can see this POV I can't help thinking that while I wouldn't be wild about being called up if I were one of the draftees in 1996, on the assumption that someone was going to be shooting at me soon I'd be pretty keen to learn everything I could. If you add that to the points made esewhere, that draftees had a higher level of education in the main, and that as you would be getting an older, more experienced (in terms of civilian life) recruit there would be a wider range of practical experience then I can see how a unit of draftees in T2K might be more useful than a pre-war unit.
After all, most units in T2K, whether a "frontline" infantry organisation or a rear area maintenance outfit, are going to need to be able to fight
and
do reconstruction work.
Thinking about it a little more, wouldn't the draftees be fed into those units that needed replacements rather than form new units? So wouldn't most units be a mixed back of old timers and draftees (who probably don't entirely gel together in the rear until they've been shot at a few times)?