The basic flaw in your premise is that the people who decide when and where the military gets used are the elected representatives of the country as a whole.
FDR was from a wealthy family and was never in the military (and could not be due to his polio). Yet under his Presidency the Draft was started and WW2 fought.
Clinton never served in any capacity (and was even quoted as loathing the military) yet he used the military in such ventures as Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia. Regardless of that you did not see any destruction of morale or mass exodus of troops as you suggest would happen.
Your analogy between a volunteer soldier and a merc is quite illuminating; if completly false.
A merc fights for a paycheck. He has no stake in the outcome nor any concern for the cause he fights for. At the end of the fight or contract time he leaves for the next job. Their is no discipline, no chain of command, no chance for improvement (beyond the singular skill of killing).
A volunteer soldier fights for his country as ordered by the leaders of his country. He has a stake in the outcome and upon the conclusion of the fight remains at the call of his country. He maintains his discipline and order, and is responsible to and for the Chain of Command.I will have to continue to disagree. Having been a member of the voluntary force while Draftees were still in service, I have seen the difference beween the groups. A draft (even limited) would either destroy the current morale of the military, or require a caste seperation of the services (which would then lead to other serious issues).
