Feeling the Draft

[Guest guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/19/opinion/19krugman.html?oref=login

 

October 19, 2004

OP-ED COLUMNIST

 

 

Feeling the Draft

By PAUL KRUGMAN

 

Those who are worrying about a revived draft are in the same position

as those who worried about a return to budget deficits four years ago,

when President Bush began pushing through his program of tax cuts.

Back then he insisted that he wouldn't drive the budget into deficit -

but those who looked at the facts strongly suspected otherwise. Now he

insists that he won't revive the draft. But the facts suggest that he

will.

 

There were two reasons some of us never believed Mr. Bush's budget

promises. First, his claims that his tax cuts were affordable rested

on patently unrealistic budget projections. Second, his broader policy

goals, including the partial privatization of Social Security - which

is clearly on his agenda for a second term - would involve large costs

that were not included even in those unrealistic projections. This led

to the justified suspicion that his election-year promises

notwithstanding, Mr. Bush would preside over a return to budget deficits.

 

It's exactly the same when it comes to the draft. Mr. Bush's claim

that we don't need any expansion in our military is patently

unrealistic; it ignores the severe stress our Army is already under.

And the experience in Iraq shows that pursuing his broader foreign

policy doctrine - the " Bush doctrine " of pre-emptive war - would

require much larger military forces than we now have.

 

This leads to the justified suspicion that after the election, Mr.

Bush will seek a large expansion in our military, quite possibly

through a return of the draft.

 

Mr. Bush's assurances that this won't happen are based on a denial of

reality. Last week, the Republican National Committee sent an angry,

threatening letter to Rock the Vote, an organization that has been

using the draft issue to mobilize young voters. " This urban myth

regarding a draft has been thoroughly debunked, " the letter declared,

and quoted Mr. Bush: " We don't need the draft. Look, the all-volunteer

Army is working. "

 

In fact, the all-volunteer Army is under severe stress. A study

commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld arrived at the same conclusion as

every independent study: the U.S. has " inadequate total numbers " of

troops to sustain operations at the current pace. In Iraq, the lack of

sufficient soldiers to protect supply convoys, let alone pacify the

country, is the root cause of incidents like the case of the

reservists who refused to go on what they described as a " suicide

mission. "

 

Commanders in Iraq have asked for more troops (ignore the

administration's denials) - but there are no more troops to send. The

manpower shortage is so severe that training units like the famous

Black Horse Regiment, which specializes in teaching other units the

ways of battle, are being sent into combat. As the military expert

Phillip Carter says, " This is like eating your seed corn. "

 

Anyway, do we even have an all-volunteer Army at this point? Thousands

of reservists and National Guard members are no longer serving

voluntarily: they have been kept in the military past their agreed

terms of enlistment by " stop loss " orders.

 

The administration's strategy of denial in the face of these realities

was illustrated by a revealing moment during the second presidential

debate. After Senator John Kerry described the stop-loss policy as a

" backdoor draft, " Charles Gibson, the moderator, tried to get a

follow-up response from President Bush: " And with reservists being

held on duty -- "

 

At that point Mr. Bush cut Mr. Gibson off and changed the subject from

the plight of the reservists to the honor of our Polish allies, ending

what he obviously viewed as a dangerous line of questioning.

 

And during the third debate, Mr. Bush tried to minimize the issue,

saying that the reservists being sent to Iraq " didn't view their

service as a backdoor draft. They viewed their service as an

opportunity to serve their country. " In that case, why are they being

forced, rather than asked, to continue that service?

 

The reality is that the Iraq war, which was intended to demonstrate

the feasibility of the Bush doctrine, has pushed the U.S. military

beyond its limits. Yet there is no sign that Mr. Bush has been

chastened. By all accounts, in a second term the architects of that

doctrine, like Paul Wolfowitz, would be promoted, not replaced. The

only way this makes sense is if Mr. Bush is prepared to seek a much

larger Army - and that means reviving the draft.

 

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |