The "beauty" of a volunteer Army, no matter how noble it sounds, is a very destructive institution. I'm one of the few liberals that you'll probably see that supports a draft. I'm mainly pacifist, in that I think the entire world should be demilitarized, and military is a pretty outdated and almost barbaric institution; but so long as we have violent differences, and militarized nations around the world, I'd personally rather support a drafted Army.

The main difference between a volunteer Army and a drafted Army is the difference between the SS and the Wehrmacht in Nazi Germany, if I may use the historical comparison. Nazi Germany is an extreme example, and is good to compare and show what could happen on the current coarse. As many know, the SS is the chosen 'elite' out of the Nazi's ranks, and the most loyal of Hitler's subjects. And the Wehrmacht is a drafted Army of the people, that is the people's army. And as many of us know, the SS was known to be the true masterminds behind the attrocities behind the front lines onto both German and foreign peoples. Whilst the Wehrmacht was mostly protesting to such acts earlier on in the war, and was mostly the 'good soldiers' (for lack of better terms). Then of coarse the Wehrmacht, after WWII, later turned into the Bundeswehr; our allies.

If it is a solely volunteer Army, in that you get the select few, the select elite of society that is willing to kill human beings, and usually the select few that supports the current administration in that they are willing to give their lives serving it. Just like the SS in Nazi Germany. However, if we had a drafted army, that is the 'people's army', or the Wehrmacht, then indeed the Army wouldn't be such a dangerous institution. There deffinetly wouldn't be as many attrocities that are occuring in Iraq, and the Army is less likely to blindly follow the administration into unconstitutional wars. In other words, a people's army is much more likely to stay true to their oath of not only fighting enemies foreign, but also domestic.