Having read the article, it occured to me that exactly the same argument could be made for re-introducing slavery in order to speed up reconstruction in Iraq.

The argument boils down to :

The administration’s litany of misrepresentations and outright falsehoods on Iraq is so pervasive that nothing it says can be taken at face value.

Yes, George Bush says there will be no draft while he is president, but don’t bet your life on it.

If extra troops are needed, just read the article:

The United States maintains troops in 130 countries, including 146,000 combat troops in Iraq and 9,000 in Afghanistan.

We also have 119,000 military personnel in Europe, 43,000 in Japan, 37,000 in Korea and other forces elsewhere. To maintain these commitments while continuing to rotate troops out of Iraq every 12 months stretches our forces to the limit. The present level of combat in Iraq is unsustainable with our current forces.

Except that the US is withdrawing troops from Europe and Korea, so the initial premise is not merely false, but is known by the author to be false. He also doesn’t mention the rather larger numbers of troops in the Continental USA. Remember, Bush Sr managed to put ~500,000 into Iraq during Desert Storm - and even with drawdowns since then, 250,000 would be achievable if it were needed today, at least, for a short time.

There is a limit, and it would be prudent to keep a reserve in case things go sour in, say, Korea. Troops in the CONUS are undergoing training, and are the ready reserve, they’re not to be committed lightly.

But in today’s highly technological armed forces, a draft isn’t a feasible option, any more than mass production of black-powder muskets would be to fill a shortage of tanks, no matter how severe. If more troops are needed, retention rates have to be improved, and more troops recruited voluntarily. Even then, there’s at least a 3-year time gap for them to be trained adequately. More volunteers today means a greater capability in 2008, not before.

Still, I doubt that facts, logic etc will have any bearing on the argument: it’s a scare piece, written by someone who knows better. Those who are convinced he’s right will remain so, those who’re convinced he’s wrong will remain so.

Posted by: aebrain at October 23, 2004 11:48 AM

Oh yes, the recruitment figures in the article are worrying, at least, for 2007-8.

But (unless there’s some data he has that I don’t) his figures are directly contradicted by the DOD

We are currently growing our Army as fast as we can. We man the force through recruiting and retention, and this is important. Recruiting and retention are the way we man the force, and we’re watching these closely. Recruiting in the active component is currently on glide path for the fiscal year ‘04 — 2004 — mission, and we’re at 101 percent of glide path right now on that for the active component. Reserve recruiting is at 102 percent of mission, and — while the National Guard is at 88 percent. However, we remain cautiously optimistic that we will make our goal.

.

Posted by: aebrain at October 23, 2004 12:02 PM

I blame attacks on Bush’s national guard service for the lowered NG recruitment rate. Casting aspersions on the ability to serve your country via the National Guard cannot be good.

Posted by: TBox at October 23, 2004 12:38 PM

If more troops are needed, the government could just turn to Pell Grant male recipients. I view it as a possible “backdoor draft” in times when military goals require ground battle (q.v. Vietnam and now Iraq).

Factcheck.org reports (as a correction / supplement to the 3rd debate) that under Bush, the number of Pell recipients rose to 5.1 million from 3.9 million.

Regarding the Selective Service, I will just paste verbatim (sorry for the bandwidth) (see http://www.sss.gov/reg5.htm ):

“The Solomon Amendment, passed in 1982, is Section 12(f) to the Military Selective Service Act which requires Selective Service registration for male students as a pre-condition for eligibility for Title IV Federal Student Financial Aid. The categories of financial aid which require registration before eligibility include:

—Pell Grants
—Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants
—College Work-Study
—National Direct Student Loans
—Guaranteed Student/Plus Loans
—Some State Student Incentive Grant Programs
“
I am concerned that Bush is not such a good pro-education leader given the criticism of his tenure as the governor of Texas, where the educational system ranked near (or at?) the bottom of the list of states.

So there would not have to be an outright draft (which is the type the media is focusing on) because the list of grant recipients already seem to provide plenty.

Posted by: abecker at October 23, 2004 02:10 PM

abecker-

“I am concerned that Bush is not such a good pro-education leader given the criticism of his tenure as the governor of Texas, where the educational system ranked near (or at?) the bottom of the list of states.”

No doubt you are concerned…..given the criticism. If you should ever want to investigate you could go here:

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/scalescore.asp

To find out that GW’s charter school program (1995) began pushing up test scores in 1996. They remained @ 7 points above the national avg. until his departure. In 2003 they ranked 3 pts above the national avg.

As to the pell grants, I have to admit that I am mystified by the link you provide as support for your “backdoor draft” theory, it appears to be sound evidence to the contary.

As an aside, does anyone else agree that Teresa H-K is politcs answer to Courtney Love?

Posted by: CRITIQULE at October 23, 2004 09:52 PM