- Joined
- Jun 15, 2014
- Messages
- 28,762
- Reaction score
- 9,443
- Location
- Florida The Armband State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I don't know where to start.
First of all, when we had a draft the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and within the Army the 173rd, 101st, 82nd, Ranger School grads, Special Forces, Helicopter pilots, fixed-wing pilots, etc., etc., were all voluntary. It wasn't a military made up exclusively of draftees. Not by a long shot. So something tells me we could have covered Afghanistan without much of a problem.
Back to Vietnam. Again, Vietnam could have been won with a conventional force. There was no need fora "myriad groups of specialized forces" or the total destruction of the north by "doing a cUrtis LeMay". I served in both a conventional infantry unit and a specialized unit. The way the NVA operated a conventional force could have prevailed with the availability of enough troops. But, as we know, that level couldn't be reached because the public wouldn't allow it.
You're mixing two problems. The fact that Vietnam wasn't a wise war to get involved in is one problem. The question of whether or not a fully committed conventional force could have prevailed is another. I'm only debating the latter.
I never said the US armed forces during conscription consisted "exclusively" of drafted personnel into the Army. So something tells me you either didn't read my post because maybe it had too much actual stuff in it or you need some reading improvement.
The US armed forces consisted of 8,744,000 service members during the Vietnam Era -- 1964 into 1975 -- of whom 3,403,000 were deployed to Southeast Asia.
From a pool of approximately 27 million, the draft raised 2,215,000 men for military service (in the United States, South Vietnam, and elsewhere) during the Vietnam War era.
I myself volunteered via Rotc beginning in 1962 and on commissioning in 1966 volunteered (by invitation) for the 3d Inf. Reg. The Old Guard of the Army in the Military District of Washington DC. The Army I signed up with and joined consisted of conscripts whose serial number prefix was US (United States) and volunteers whose serial number prefix was RA (Regular Army). So your statement to me in your post about not "exclusively" draftees is ridiculous.
So back to the numbers. If all of those men whether volunteers or conscripts weren't enough, how many troops did you want in order to wage your own categorization of a "conventional war"? It was a conventional war the US fought in VN and the US lost it for the many reasons pointed out from the time up to the present analyses and retrospection.
In WW II the US had 15 million active duty personnel engaged in fighting in North Africa, the Med, Europe and in the Asia-Pacific, yet during the VN War Era 1964-1975 the US mustered 8.7 million. So did you want 15 million or maybe want more than a 15 million force strength to wage the "conventional war" in VN that you would have waged as opposed to the conventional war the US did in fact conduct in losing it.