I recently came across in passing Loren Baritz' critique of the all-volunteer military in his 1985 book Backfire. Baritz takes the view that this was a disastrous change in the nature of American citizenship, for: "future presidents would be freer to act militarily because now they could depend on the compliance of a middle class whose sons would be safe. It meant that America would now rely for its defense on men who had been denied opportunity at home..." (p.341.)
I am wondering how this debate unfolded at the time the draft was ended, and/or whether anyone has investigated its effects (as per the title question).
Many thanks in advance!
What an interesting question. I don't have real documentary evidence about this. I can only give you my point of view from having lived through the transition and having served in the all volunteer period of the military. First, one must remember that before the transition to all volunteer, the military was held in the lowest regard that it ever did in the history of this country. We were coming out of the Vietnam War. News coverage of the war and of times when troops went rogue was brutal. Most Americans had never actually seen war before, and with Vietnam, we had the war in our living rooms every night. So, the very understanding of war had changed.
When we went all volunteer, the US military was in a time of soul searching and reflection. It wanted to get away from the legacy of Vietnam. It also wanted to learn from that legacy. So, the move to all volunteer was used to shift from taking anyone who couldn't avoid the draft to creating a number of incentives so positive that it would attract more intelligent recruits. Bonuses for people who could score high enough on the ASVABs or could qualify for jobs that needed very skilled people were added. Pay was improved. Quarters were improved. So, very shortly, for many people the military became a place to move up in the world.
At the same time, the National Guard was nationalized. States got more money to equip and train their NG troops, and agreed to their being part of the national force (which is actually a return to the plan to defend the country at its inception). But again, this change the structure of the military's relationship to the average person.
And finally, many jobs were shed off to contractors. Jobs that had all traditionally been done by soldiers, were now the jobs of civilians. So, we greatly diminished the size of the military in addition to making it a volunteer job.
Having done all that, the general population was insulated from being involved in wars. I think the evidence of this insulation came during the Afghanistan and Iraq Wards. Consider this article from 2005: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/nyregion/growing-problem-for-military-recruiters-parents.html?_r=0
Parents literally do not want their kids approached by recruiters. But I question whether that is really a change. In Vietnam, parents with enough resources worked very hard to keep their children out of the war, some even going as far as paying for their sons to flee the country. We have numerous politicians who skipped the war via deferments and/or medical exclusions.