When there is a draft in effect, Iīm not sure that you can classify anyone as a "volunteer". I had friends who joined the Air Force and Marines in the early ī70s, and would be "volunteers" according to the simple definintion; but they "volunteered" only because they would have been drafted for worse service if they didnīt enlist. Someone who enlists only because they are being threatened is no volunteer. The current arrangement in which there is no draft is far superior because we know that all of the members of the armed services are truly volunteers. And if it means that the government has to offer better pay and conditions to get the volunteers, then thatīs a good thing.
LBJ and Nixon were hesitant to win for good reason. The Constitution states explicitly that only Congress has the power to declare war and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was far from a declaration of war. The only way to win in Vietnam was to occupy North Vietnam and that would have been too far beyond the authority granted by Congress. Congress would have been right to impeach a president who wages war in defiance of congress and the constitution.
The current situation is fascinating in a macabre way. Successive presidents from both parties have developed ways to exercise their authority as CinC to engage in acts of war without congressional approval. Presidents are able to kill a few hundred civilians in Kosovo or a few hundred in Panama without any check or balance and without massive outcry from the American citizenry. It should be no surprise that the international community views this as a dangerous situation. The framers of the consitution were smart people. They had good reason to require that the government not become embroiled in war without a rationalle that can be defended in public.
Yours,
Thom