I think we agree that, for purposes of national security and military readiness, it will be extremely difficult for the United States to indefinitely maintain 130-odd thousand troops in Iraq and still maintain even threshold levels of capacity to deter and/or respond to threats in other areas. By some measures the system is already stretched to near the breaking point.

At the same time the president's oft-stated policy is that we will stay in Iraq as long as it takes to complete the mission of democratizing and pacifying the country.

With that reality and that policy, somethings got to give.

It doesn't mean a draft is a necessity. But it does move it into the realm of serious policy possibilities the country has to face. This is particularly so when our military relies on regular recruitment of reservists who until now generally assumed that deployments in warzones were a serious possiblity as opposed to a near certainty, as they have been for the last few years. This is also the case since the administration has said very little about how it will confront this challenge.

In any case, it's a very legitimate issue. And anyone who thinks seriously about military policy issues has to see that it is one of fairly few policy options to address a looming crisis facing the US military.

Tom,

If you "seriously" think about military policy options, you will see that a draft is a non-starter, and I'm not talking politically.

We in the military DO NOT WANT A DRAFT. Period. The last thing anyone who fights for this country wants is someone fighting next to him/her who does NOT want to be there. A unit's effectiveness hinges on many things, not the least of which is a positive attitude, a "warrior spirit" if you will.

To have some dude off the streets who isn't there of his own free will disrupts unit cohesiveness. Ask anyone who has operated as a member of a team...one bad apple really can spoil the bunch. As an officer, will I have to worry about some shanghai'd 20 year old fragging me at night? A group of guys feeling sorry for themselves and moping all day? Drugs? All symptons of the Vietnam era draft.

We say, "No thanks." It'll never happen...half of the volunteers would quit on the spot. I won't serve with people who don't want to serve. Stop scaring kids with the draft talk...or at least be honest about which party is offering up the ghost of the draft.

Where, oh where, will we get the troops, you ask? Well, we didn't seem to have a problem getting our military up to 2.1M in the 80s. We went from 26 Fighter Wings to 13 under Clinton. The Army and Navy were similiarly gutted. Get Congress to expand the size of the force, and the force will expand...with volunteers. Let's try that approach and see what happens.

Ivan, I'm sure all of the veterans who fought honorably in World War II and Vietnam who happened to have been drafted will really appreiciate your acknowledgement of their service and sacrifice for their country. Support Our Troops!

Prolonged tours of duty, poor communication by DoD regarding the definition and duration of soldiers' missions, and the Administration's failure to adopt a successful force-protection strategy have undermined morale among soldiers serving in Iraq. In a broad survey conducted in October by the Stars and Stripes newspaper, 49 percent of all soldiers surveyed said it is "very unlikely" or "not likely" that they will reenlist after they complete their current obligations. The same percentage described their unit's morale as low.

If nearly half the total military force fails to reenlist, "it will take at least a decade to bring the military back to its prewar readiness standards," according to former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb. Retired Army Major General William Nash, former Commander General for training at the Army Combined Arms Command, has noted: "it's fairly obvious the current stress and time away from home will have an effect on retention. It'll be more immediately felt in the Reserves and Guard, but if this pace keeps up, you'll see it in the active-duty forces as well. You'll lose sergeants and captains. They're the core of the make-it-happen guys."

Unfortunately, early indications are that extended deployments, difficult conditions, and poor communication by DoD have led to decreases in recruiting and retention rates. On September 24, the Los Angeles Times reported that, for the first time in seven years, the Army National Guard, which is the largest military reserve organization, is uncertain of meeting its recruiting goals. As of August 31, it was nearly 13,500 soldiers short of its target of 62,000 troops by the end of September.

Moreover, Lieutenant General James Helmly, Chief of the Army Reserve, recently warned of an impending retention crisis, which he blamed in part on "pipe dream" communications issued in place of honest information regarding deployment lengths. (The Washington Post, January 21, 2004) As evidence of this impending crisis, the Boston Globe reported on November 23 that the Army Reserve missed its retention goal by 6.7 percent - only its second shortfall since 1997. The Globe noted that the shortfall "was largely the result of a larger than expected exodus of career reservists, a loss of valuable skills because such staff members are responsible for training junior officers and operating complex weapons systems."

Finally, the Los Angeles Times article noted also that retention numbers are "somewhat deceiving" because they fail to take into account the fact that DoD's stop-loss policy prevents mobilized soldiers from leaving the service until 90 days after deactivation. While these soldiers temporarily remain in the armed services, boosting retention numbers in the short-term, they will soon depart, leaving even greater holes to fill.

If it's such a problem, then why is the military saying that it doesn't want a draft? Bringing in a bunch of conscripts would only lessen the effectiveness of the military.

Conservatives seem to latch onto simple metaphors, so I will respond to you with this:

A car needs fuel to run on whether or not the quality of the gas is regular unleaded or supreme unleaded. The US current "all volunteer" US military is running on supreme gas, but that gas is running out while at the same time degrading and there is no guarantee that there is much more supreme to fill it back up. A "conscript army," as you call it, while certainly not as effective as the volunteers, certainly qualifies as regular fuel to keep the car running. If the current trend continues with our military being overextended, the car will soon run out of gas or at a minimum, be running on such a thin supply as to affect the basic operation of the engine. At that point, I doubt you will care much about the quality of the fuel needed to get the car started (assuming there still is a car at all).

Sorry, but I don't consider the Los Angeles Times to be a credible source. The Army News Service in April 2004 http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6235 indicated the following:

* Americans continue to volunteer for duty and are re-enlisting at record rates.
* the Army National Guard, which has had 150,000 citizen soldiers mobilized for up to a year, has seen retention rates "going through the roof"
* The Guard fully expects to again reach its recruiting goal of 56,000 members this year
* The goal for second- and third-term enlistments, or those considered "career" soldiers, was set at 85 percent in the Guard but has come in at 136 percent
* The Army has been ahead of its [recruiting] goal every year since 2000 and every month this year
* The Navy is meeting all recruiting and retention goals and has cut the number of new recruits this year to the lowest target in 30 years
* Navy re-enlistment rates are at an all time high, with 62.3 percent of first-term sailors signing up for additional service. That compares with a targeted goal of 56 percent.

Military success isn't just about numbers. Quality and experience count as well, and today's military appreciates that now more than before.

I don't think anyone can honestly say that they can guarantee there will be no draft just because no one can guarantee that there will be no new major hostilities. But personally I think nothing short of another 9/11 or another major offensive in another country would strain the all-volunteer military beyond its abilities. And even then, before there would be a draft there would be a major step-up in recruiting. Therefore I just find the whole draft issue to be terribly pre-mature. To the extent that it's an issue now just because of the upcoming federal elections, just remember - it's the Democrats who are calling for a draft.

I would also point out that the US military is:

Overextended: As of July 2003, more than 230,000 of the 485,000 active Army personnel were deployed overseas, and 73 percent of Army active Battalion Combat Teams (BCTs) had been deployed overseas during Fiscal Year 2003. These deployments have created a strain on military personnel, and the high "operations tempo" has been accompanied by a tremendous cost: in addition to nearly $800 billion in authorized military spending, the Bush Administration has spent nearly $170 billion in supplemental military funding since September 11, 2001.
Underprepared: Four Army divisions - 40 percent of the active-duty force - will not be fully combat-ready for up to six months after returning from service in Iraq next spring. These units, which will have served in Iraq for nearly a year, will be rated as either C-3 or C-4, the Army's two lowest readiness categories, until they can rest, retrain, and repair vehicles and equipment. With four more divisions scheduled to replace these units in Iraq and Afghanistan, our nation will be left with only two combat-ready Army divisions for six months. As retired General Barry McCaffrey has noted, "we would only be able to respond to an emergency in North Korea with air and naval power or nuclear weapons. It's an unacceptable, in my judgment, strategic risk."
Less experienced: Because it failed to develop a comprehensive rotation schedule for troops in Iraq before or immediately after the conflict began, the Department of Defense (DoD) is now faced with the task of rotating 250,000 in and out of Iraq and Kuwait within the span of a few months at the beginning of 2004. This strategy carries an inestimable risk for security operations in Iraq: the wholesale substitution of less experienced troops for more experienced veterans. Even Secretary Rumsfeld has admitted the risk in this strategy: "You lose situational awareness, you lose relationships, you lose the experience. The people going over are ready, but the people there are experienced and really know their stuff. And who would you rather have there?"

TomJ, you are off discussing something that is not the point of the cartoon - namely, John Kerry's hypocrisy in claiming Bush had a secret plan for a draft when, A) Bush doesn't (but Democrats in Congress did!) and, B) it was KERRY who proposes a draft-like mandatory national service plan.

TomJ,

Yes, there are problems. However, the Air Force has significantly tightened retention (IE they're kicking people out over minor things) because they're overmanned.

Bush isn't planning on keeping 130k troops in Iraq. I think he's hoping to pull all but about 30k out in about a year or two. As far as responding to threats in other areas that's exactly where air, naval, and nuclear assets come in. They're not as clean, but they sure are effective. And while our soldiers would gripe and complain, they'd redeploy to another area if necessary.

As far as combat readyness goes, I'd say that we're more combat ready today than we were four years ago. After all, now we have a new large crop of veterans. The general who's complaining has a point, he "grew up" in a system that was geared to fight two wars on the magnitude of Iraq. The Clinton years saw our forces pretty much halved.

Centrally, we don't need a draft. Retention is at high levels. We're still making recruitment goals. For every soldier who gets out because of the high ops tempo, we keep 2 who are highly motivated. From past examples, we could more than quadruple our military within about ten years. However, it would mean that we'd have to promote pretty much everybody currently in twice to maintain the force struture. How could we do this without a draft?
1: a slight pay increase/bonus.
2: relax requirements a bit. This means taking people a little fatter, little thinner, little older, little more poor of sight, etc etc etc. You probably wouldn't have to do this until you're trying to more than double the size of the force.
3: Bonuses for reenlistment. Repeal of High Year Tenure (don't make rank quick enough, byebye!).

Don't forget the trillions to re-open bases, build new ones, purchase new equipment and supplies, and about 4 years minimum training. And that's seeing my Squadron commander being booted up to group level, and my flight commander getting the squadron, and half the officers being sent to form new units. They would be very green, and existing units would be reletivly green too. But it can be done.

Tom,

Your posts are so full of holes and non-sequiters it's borderline ridiculous. Using quotes and statistics out of context is a nice trick, but dishonest. Others have addressed the facts on the ground, so I won't.

I will, however, address your remark about the draftees and honoring military service. As one who has actually fought for his country, TomJ, I respect anyone who has fought honorably. There are a couple facts you can't hide, though.

The all-volunteer force was not a tradition in our country during WWII. The fact that thousands were drafted in WWII was not unusual or unexpected. You didn't have the reaction in the 40s you had in the 60s. It's a neat trick to pretend I'm slandering WWII vets, but WWII was not mentioned in my post.

Second, fragging of officers and rampant drug use DID happen in Vietnam. While I don't have statistics to support the thesis, I'd wager it wasn't volunteers who where engaging in such behavior. If a draftee fought bravely in Vietnam, as thousands no doubt did, I applaud them. Unfortunately, the hollow force we experienced in the late 70s under Jimmy Carter was a direct result of a conscript army. If you deny that, please explain.

Finally, I do support our troops and it's not a slogan in my family. My dad served two tours in Vietnam as a fighter pilot, my G'dad flew P-47s in the Pacific for three years, my Uncle flew in tac airlift in Vietnam, my twin brother flew Special Ops C-130s in Afghanistan (twice) and Iraq for OIF. His wife flew there, too. I've flown combat sorties over Iraq and Kosovo in F-16s. Another Uncle is in Mosul RIGHT NOW with the Colorado Army Guard. Support our Troops? You bet I do Tom. What's your angle?

What many are forgetting are all those base realigments overseas which will brings tens of thousands available for reassignment into other areas.

Bill thanks for giving kerry's indentured servitude National Service Plan a public airing. I wish the talk radio host like Hannity or RUSH would mention it as it would be a good counter to kerry's Draft scare.

kerry leaves out NO age group in his plans. 13-17 years olds will have to spend their summer vacations 'volunteering'..now who is going to cart these children back and forth to their place of 'volunteering' while their parents are at work?

Will the 18/26 year olds replace skilled nursing aides in nursing homes on the weekends? Because I can forsee it as these businesses look to eliminate or reduce a costly worker for the weekend.

Will Grannie or Grandpa like having to volunteer?

Then who the heck is going to pay for all this MANDATORY 'volunteering'. It will take a BACKDOOR tax HIKE at the state level to pay for all the NEW college facilities and profs that will be needed to provide that "FREE" college education that kerry is promising the 18/26 year olds for their 2 years of FULL time 'volunteer' service.

Are we parents supposed to continue to feed, clothe and house these adults while the 'volunteer' with NO or LITTLE pay?

Are we the taxSERFS going to have to PAY for these 'volunteers'?

Who is going to ENFORCE his plans? I see a NEW agency will be needed to coordinate this 'volunteer' plan.

What I see MORE TAXES needed for this EXPENSIVE boondoggle which smacks of Hitler's Youth programs...sweetened with OUR tax dollars.

Hmmmm, Kerry wants two new divisions.....40,000 people.....with no draft? This is nothing but a typical election year bait and switch. You know you are going to have to do "A" in order to complete an objective; therefore, you paint your candidate as the one that will do it. Then if you get in office, you shove it through as fast as you can (usually using some type of 'Social Program' to hide it behind. They aren't stupid, they realize that most Americans quickly forget.

With regard to the myth that "he Clinton years saw our forces pretty much halved" and other such Conservative untruths about President Clinton's masterful stewardship of the US military, President Bush inherited a well-prepared, combat ready force. Under President Clinton, the Department of Defense had shaped the military into a well-prepared, technologically-advanced, integrated force. As Lawrence Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration, wrote on May 13, "Not only did Clinton spend a large amount of money on the military; most of it was spent wisely... The Clinton administration also kept the quality of our military personnel high by closing the gap between military and private sector compensation, a gap that the first Bush administration had allowed to grow, and improving retirement and health benefits for military retirees."

Military successes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate Clinton policies were right for our forces and our security. As Vice President Cheney has said, "A commander in chief leads the military built by those who came before him" (8/30/00). Bequeathed a well-equipped and well-trained military, President Bush's unilateral action, overextension, and poor pre-operation planning have severely strained our forces and threaten to undermine our security. After three years as Commander-in-Chief, during which he has sent troops to Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia, the Philippines, Djibouti, Yemen, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan, President Bush has created a military that is overextended, short on training and supplies, and poorly prepared for new contingencies.

With regard to the myth that "he Clinton years saw our forces pretty much halved" and other such Conservative untruths about President Clinton's masterful stewardship of the US military, President Bush inherited a well-prepared, combat ready force. Under President Clinton, the Department of Defense had shaped the military into a well-prepared, technologically-advanced, integrated force. As Lawrence Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration, wrote on May 13, "Not only did Clinton spend a large amount of money on the military; most of it was spent wisely... The Clinton administration also kept the quality of our military personnel high by closing the gap between military and private sector compensation, a gap that the first Bush administration had allowed to grow, and improving retirement and health benefits for military retirees."

Military successes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate Clinton policies were right for our forces and our security. As Vice President Cheney has said, "A commander in chief leads the military built by those who came before him" (8/30/00). Bequeathed a well-equipped and well-trained military, President Bush's unilateral action, overextension, and poor pre-operation planning have severely strained our forces and threaten to undermine our security. After three years as Commander-in-Chief, during which he has sent troops to Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia, the Philippines, Djibouti, Yemen, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan, President Bush has created a military that is overextended, short on training and supplies, and poorly prepared for new contingencies.

The fact is our military succeeded in spite of what Clinton did to it, not because of it. You want to see our military stretched thin? How about "peacekeeping" missions in all parts of the globe with no real purpose or endpoint? Bases all over were closed because of slashed funding. Get your facts right, Tom.

Damn, Tom, you're right. Clinton masterfully led our armed forces and we in the military just didn't see it.

Clinton had the overwhelming support of the US Armed Forces...we didn't have to be reminded of Article 88 of the UCMJ several times during his presidency...we all loved his masterful and wise leadership...he "built" the military that was successful in Iraq/Kosovo/Afghanistan (if, in fact, you can build something by cutting it in half)...the military didn't despise him and his worthless cabinet...we do live on Mars...you aren't a partisan hack living in bizarro world...you aren't a troll Bill should cut loose...

Hey tom,

Just saw Neil Cavuot on FoxNews...someone wrote an email to the show that Neil read. It was pretty deragotory towards Cavuto and signed "Tom J." Was that you? Be honest (if that's possible).

You Gotta Serve Somebody

As for Kerry and McCain's proposals for a latter-day WPA at home, they're based on a conception of service at odds with the broader American tradition of voluntarism. Americans help each other out in myriad ways everyday without expecting a government paycheck or the seal of approval from a newly minted bureaucracy. But when Americans perform charitable works outside the state, it's awfully hard for politicians to take credit for their service.

The remarkable feats at the outset of the Iraqi conflict were performed by Bill Clinton's military.

This should be obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology or partisanship. We've been told repeatedly how much more lethal and accurate our forces are in 2003 than they were in 1991 - so much so that we needed only 250,000 troops to drive to Baghdad and change the regime, as opposed to the 500,000 we sent merely to oust Saddam from Kuwait in Gulf War I. Something like 90 percent of the bombs and missiles we use are "precision guided" today, versus roughly 10 percent back in 1991. The catalogue of how today's military is smarter, faster and better than it was back during Desert Storm is a credit to U.S. ingenuity and a source of national pride.

Hmm. Let's see. Between 1992 and 2003, the person who was president for the bulk of that time was ... Bill Clinton. It's true that President Bush has been throwing money at the Pentagon since Sept. 11, but defense planners will tell you that none of the impressive leaps in our military capability have taken place under George Bush.

So join me in toasting the unrivalled capabilities of the military that Bill Clinton handed off to his successor.