I support Adam Smith. Whether or not your draftee army is one of
technical specialists or high school drop outs the fact remains that
recruitment will NOT be at commercial rates. In a capitalist society
rates of pay are set by supply ans demand and the military, like
everyone else should hire on a supply and demand basis. This will
ensure that resources are applied optimally. If the military is
unattractive, steps should be taken to make it more attractive.

ANYTHING ELSE IS A DENIAL OF BASIC CAPITALIST PRINCIPLES

Furthermore cheap labor tends to make organizations less efficient. If
you are are paying a market price.

1) There will be transparancy over defense costs. Part of the argument
with China is the fact that their forces are not costed on the same
basis as ours.

2) The cost of conscription to the civil economy is the market rate.
This is pure Adam Smith. If he military then costs its labor on a
different basis its practices will effectively be draining the civil
economy of its resources.

Letvus take another example. In England there is a shortage of Science
teachers. Should science gradusates be conscripted to teach. Of course
not. It would do nothing for the organization of schools. In England
one of the major sources of stress is poor discipline. Consciption
would mask this and make it even worse.

The public sector is in a position to make its own rules. One simple
fact - If Bush were to create a Spanish speaking foreign legion with a
US passport at the end of it he might well be applauded. If you were to
employ an illegal you would be breaking the law. Actually you can
become bilingual if you learn a language when young - on an illegal
knee!

The question of why labor is more valuable in the US than it is in
Mexico is an interesting one to debate. Certauinly if you want "trabajo
barato" in any part of the public sector, there is your solution.