AttenTION: A McCain Presidency Guarantees a Military Draft

John McCain tells us that he is not a very good economist. It brings to mind the old joke that the definition of an economist is someone who is good with numbers but did not have the personality to be an accountant.

Prepare for a campaign during which McCain will prove to everyone that, as the poor economist he admits to being, he is not good with numbers, and he certainly will not be held accountable.

But McCain is not joking when he talks about his war policy. He wants to continue the Iraq War. He pledges to increase the US commitment to fight al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. He wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell (and, by the way, he knows how to catch him, he just has not told George Bush). He also speaks of other wars.

George Bush says to listen to the generals. Well, the Army Chief of Staff General George Casey tells us that our military is way overstretched, and that tours-of-duty will have to become shortened. [When asked prior to the invasion in '03 whether he was worried about overextending the military, our seerless President said: "the military will not be overextended," and the reporter failed to ask him how he knew that]. General (ret) Barry McCaffrey has said that we are so lowering recruitment standards just to keep our numbers up that he is concerned for the long-term quality of the military.

Where is the money going to come from to pay for it all? Daddy at least got the Saudis to pay for most of the first Gulf War. George W. has not received a devalued dime from them. Having succeeded in bankrupting the country by turning a $5 trillion projected surplus into a $3 trillion deficit, an astonishing $8 trillion turnaround, borrowing like bandits from the social security trust fund just as the boomers are about to retire in droves, what devalued currency is McCain going to use to pay for all of this?

Listen for these McCain answers: he will be "confident" that Americans will be patriotic enough to answer the call to duty and volunteer in sufficient numbers for the military (but, curiously, not confident that the wealthiest Americans are patriotic enough to pay higher taxes to support his wars -- odd, isn't it?) Does McCain believe that, now that they can no longer exhibit a higher patriotism by helping their dad become president, the Romney sons will now volunteer? Or, Jenna's financee? Or, perhaps, Jenna herself? We do need to give McCain credit, his own sons, like Jim Webb's, are volunteering.

But, unlike the squeamish White House reporter who was afraid of not getting called upon again and thus accepted Bush's bald assertion on overextending the military without a followup, we ought to be entitled to ask McCain two questions: upon what recent evidence is his confidence based? And, if he is wrong, what is going to do?

He has 4 choices. He can call for a draft. He can wind down the Iraq War, and deploy some, but not all the forces to Afghanistan. He can get sufficient volunteers. He can get allies to add troops.

Well, people are just not volunteering in sufficient numbers. The allies are pulling, not adding, troops. So, he is down to a draft or winding down the war. He said he will not do the latter. What's left?

He will not tell you this, but here is the answer: he will have to call for a military draft, period. The military would prefer not to do it, draftees are more difficult to train and form into cohesive fighting forces. But, there is no other way to fight all his wars, at the level he wishes to fight them. No, McCain is not joking about his war policies. He just will not tell the truth about the implications. He will, of course, deny vigorously when challenged that they require a military draft.

But, that's what simple addition compels. Today's second-graders, who will 10 years hence be called by McCain's draft, could teach him that.

Comments

[wolfi101]

I believe, it's true, that The Draft would unite the country...
...but it would unite it against its leaders and the war. We're already bleeding this country dry of lives and money, and there is such a strong anti-war sentiment around --- then to force people to give up their children or their own lives to fight and possibly be maimed or die? It's just political suicide.

Not to mention, I suspect, it will be much more difficult to fight this war amidst boycotts, protests, and a wave of far more negative media reporting.

I've watched McCain for the last decade. You can't trust, what he says. [This isn't to say, you can trust some of these other politicians, either, though.] The thing, that scares me most about him, however, is not that he's commited to fighting these two wars and winning --- it's that he seems so eager to embrace the idea of war.

[ lol @ MsLiz ]

[jamillaw]

And y'all complain about Hillary using scare tactics...

[Hofnarr]

I'm still waiting for the draft that was "guaranteed" to happen if Bush was reelected in 2004. Do leftists actually believe their own nonsense?

[jfor]

A draft would be the best thing for this country. All the fence sitters would have to finally decide what they truly support instead of whats convenient for them personally. Politicians would be accountable and responsible for the decisions they make and how those decisions affect our troops, instead of pointing out that they are "volunteers" so it is ok that we dont provide them with the proper equipment, as they currently do. A draft would bring this nation together, just not in a way that our current President and Congress are comfortable with. A draft would insure everyone is contributing fairly. A draft would ensure that this country supports the decisions of its leaders unequivocally. A draft would strengthen our convictions and show our enemies that we as a country are ready to fight. A draft would be the morally honest thing to do.

Of course we wont have a draft since our leaders are spineless, but mostly we wont have a draft because even with all the rhetoric spewing out of Bushs mouth NO WAR HAS BEEN LEGALLY DECLARED. no war, no draft.

[RTOTrainer]

We aren't lacking proper equipment. A draft would break this country apart, and I'm not comfortable with that.

A draft cannot ensure that everyone is contributing fairly. There are simply too many factors that govern who is fit to serve (and 70% of our high school students don't meet the basic physical requirements) and even if fit, not everyone is suited to military service. I don't want to have to rely on anyone in a lfe and death situation that isn't at least as committed to the job as I am.

Declaration of war has been the exception and not the rule throughout our history. It's simply not a requirement.

[Thorn]

"No war, no draft"? Where do you get a premise like that? Is it in some make-believe lawbook? Something you heard somewhere? I really don't get it.

[PaulAbrams]

All the comments make the same point, in various ways, that the article makes: the McCain position does not work without the draft.

[JulieSA]

I don't understand your assessment of McCain's war position. He wants to continue the gradual drawdown of troops in Iraq, as the Iraqi army and security forces become trained up. This is already happening. I think the Dem position of yanking the troops out of there without regard to what's happening on the ground is much more likely to cause Iraq to blow up again, leading to more war and more troops deployed.

Afghanistan is a NATO op, and the only reason we keep having to increase our troops there is that most of the NATO countries are not fulfilling their commitments (again). Europe needs to learn to pull its own weight in the world. [Or maybe not; the 20th century showed that Europeans can't be trusted with too much military might.]

I'm not sure what you're referring to by this: "He also speaks of other wars."

We should probably grow the size of the Army and Marines anyway. The all-volunteer Army of the early 90's (before the post-Cold War drawdown) was much larger than todays, which indicates to me that we could increase the forces without a draft. It doesn't help when certain cities and universities discourage the presence of military recruiters. If the services aren't allowed to recruit, then a draft is guaranteed.

[RTOTrainer]

Not so. You're ignoring Thorne, who has stated that your basic premises are wrong and he won't need one.

Thorne: "Actually, he's been fairly clear that it IS option 2 [winding down the war]. He wants a small, stabilizing presence a la South Korea or Germany."

It makes your purpose appear to be far less about warning of a lack of foresight or of an attempt to mislead, and far more about a simple slander of SEN McCain; claiming that he's either shortsighted or lying.

Your position would be better served if you could point to an escalation, on either side, in the conflict (actually you could if you didn't, as typical, ignore Afghanistan,but that wont become the boogy monster of the anti-war left until we've abandoned the Iraqi people, even if it is very minor), but the Iraq committment is drawing down as we speak.

[RTOTrainer]

Bald assertions by Mr. Abrams:

Recruiting standards have not been lowered except for raising the maximum age. Only Congress can change the standards and they have not.

We haven't missed a recruiting goal since 2005 and htat shortfall was quickly made up. So much for the bald assertion.

Troop levels in Afghanistan have done nothing but grow since 2001. Individual members may periodically decrease their committment, but overall, those changes have always been made up by someone else increasing theirs.

Everyone is drawing down in Iraq, but that's presently feasible.

General thoughts on a draft:

A Draft is completely impractical.

So impractical, in fact, as to be impossible while also carrying on a war.

Draftees are not volunteers. Their motivation and dedication will range across a much boader spectrum then we have inteh Volunteer military of today. A draft would actually exacerbate the manpower problem. I know that's counter-intuitive but it's true. If we allow conscript troops we have to reorganize a force that we are already trying to reorganize. In fact we'll have to completely scrap the current Transformation steps. Conscripts require greater supervision than volunteers. That means a greater need for NCOs, especially junior NCOs like myself, and officers. When you do this it increases the size of the Team (the smallest element of an army unit), this increases the size of the squad, the platoon, the company and all the way up. It could easilly take another 2 divisions worth of troops to fill out the 10 active duty combat divisions.

You'll also have a mass exodus of seasoned troops like myself who won't stay for the destruction of the military that a return to conscription would cause.

The one thing that absolutely will have to change is Basic Training. With crops of recruits arriving at the induction centers who are not self-motivated to be there, motivation must be imposed externally. That was accomplished, when we had conscription, by Drill Sergeants who were allowed to beat the tar out of recruits that did not do as they were told or who overtly challenged the authority of the training structure. A couple of years ago we had a batch of Drill Sergeants and a Company Commander disciplined for comparatively mild mistreatment of recruits. I just don't believe that a society that is shrinking from casualties in Iraq that are far less than the number of killed on our roads here at home could handle this idea. Gone will be the "hands-off" basic training. Who will sign the legisltion to allow for, or at least not call for investigations of, recruits being subjected to "wall-to-wall counselling?"

All of this requires new doctrine. Everything from movement, because of larger, team, squad, and platoon sizes, to command and control because of a lowered reliance on initiative.

Then there's the money issues. Current vehicles have been bought because they easily carry current team/squad/platoon size elements.We'll need either new vehicles or more of them.

You gotta pay, house and feed these people, too. And where will we house them? The Army is building like mad to house the troops that will be returning to the US witht new state-side basing plan. Last week, HASC Chair Rep. Ike Skelton had hearings on Army building and indicated that there's a plan to build temporary housing while the permanent housing is being built.

For that matter, where will we train them? We currently have 5 Basic Training Centers. One will be closed under BRAC in 2009. They are currently operating at a moderate pace, but that'll step up across the board with Ft. Knox shutting the BCT doors. NAd then you'll add in how many conscripts over what period of time?

What percentage of conscripts will stay and make a career of the military? If they are drafted for 6 years (current Selective Service laws say 2, but even 4 is too short for many MOSs) which aligns with voluntary enlistment duration (there are variations, but I'm not going to go into that), then you start a revolving door which will inflate the number of people that are then entitled to one level of vererans benefits or another, unless you reduce benefits or raise requirements to be eligible.

What do you do with the people that are "drafted" but aren't suited to service? Not everyone is. The idea is universal service. Or are we going to water down the quality of the force by taking all comers? Won't this result in greater costs in treating these people for injuries for the physically and psychologicaly unsuited?

The devil truly is in the details on this idea.

Scrap all current Transformation efforts: You may be able to proceed with the Modular Force concept, but you'll have to halt all changes and reformulate the Tables of Organization and Equipment (TO&E). This is because:

Increase Team and Squad sizes: Conscript troops have a wide variation in levels of motivation, education and initiative. To compensate, more oversight is required. This means more NCOs per troop. One SGT who currently supervises 5 or 7 troops would have to narrow his focus to 3 or 4. When you increase the Team and the Squad, you also increase the Platoon, the Company, the Battalion and all the way up. This means:

A Larger and Longer Logistical Train is needed: More troops means a need for more "beans and bullets" and that means more trucks, more truck drivers, more and bigger convoys:This by itself is a problem given current challenges in Iraq.

Bigger platoons also means different equipment has to be obtained: The Bradley, the workhorse of our Mechanized Infantry formations, is designed so that 4 of them can carry one entire platoon. Three each carry a Squad and the fourth carries the platoon HQ. You don't want to split squads up (hinders teamwork), so a new vehicle that will carry more troops has to be purchased. That's just one example of that sort.

In order to save money to pay for the larger Army, pay will be cut: And why wouldn't they? When troops no longer have the choice to serve or not, any pay can be considered "fair." At the very least, the raises that have become so regular over the last decade, will stop. I also predict, if a draft were initiated, all current troop welfare programs would be frozen if not halted and cut back. The volunteer service has been the biggest single motivator for improving living conditions, facilities, equipment. No one will volunteer to be mistreated.

Can't afford a draft, don't want a draft, won't be a draft. And if I'm wrong, ti will mean the destruction of the military as an effective force for years afterward.

[Schmuck281]

I think what you are trying to say is "Boo!!! The Bogeyman's gonna getcha!!)

Have you notice that the only people flogging for a draft are Liberals?

[jfor]

What a bunch of bullshit. The length of your answer dictates that it is all fluff, smoke and mirrors and pure republican fear mongering.

There will be no draft for the simple reason, IT WILL END THE WAR.

A draft means no more contracts to Haliburtion, KBR and Blackwater, that is not going to happen.

As far as timing goes, we started from scratch during ww2, we can do it again, we just dont want to.

As far as spending money we dont have, well buddy you already support that unequivocally. So zip it.

[RTOTrainer]

I think you meant to reply to my comment.

The length of my comment shows the lack of foresight and of knowledge of the system that is characteristic of anyone who favors a draft.

Yes. A draft would end the war. It'd also destroy the effective ness of teh US military for a period no less than 18 months while we retooled and teh repercussions wold go way beyond that--a massive conscript army will never be as effective as the relatively small volunteer force we have now.

We did not start from scratch in WWII. We started early, well before 1941. We started drafting in 1940. Look up the "Louisiana Maneuvers" sometime and you might get a sense of the beadth of the preparations that were going on. In addition, the military of WWII, was expressly designed to be rapidly filled out via conscription. Ours today is not.

We are spending money that we dont' have, but you're playing a shell game if you state that the war is it. Operations in Iraq (ignoring the rest of the campaigns of this war asi s typical) have cost $611 billion through FY 2008. The Social Security Administration's budget for ONLY FY 2008 is $655 billion. But the war is bankrupting us first? The DoD operating budget is $624 billion and that's where pay, benefits, VA, building, training and equipment come in. You favor doubling that? Trippling it? That's what it'll take.

[Thorn]

You're precisely right. The only person in Congress to toss out a resolution in favor of the draft was Charlie Rangell (D, NY). And when it came up for a vote, he voted AGAINST his own resolution. (Sorry to be repetitive, but it bears repeating due to how absurd it is.)

[MsLiz]

They can draft everyone's kids except mine because I am going to turn them into homosexuals. It is always the mother's fault, right?

[mommadona]

DUH..

[BusGreg]

While I was opposed to the draft during the "other" insane quagmire, I am actually in favor of bringing back the draft. My reasons for saying this are diametrically opposite from the reasons mentioned in the article.
I was one of those proud warriors AGAINST the war back in the 60's and 70's. (I turned 18 in 1970) One of the things that held the anti-war movement together WAS the draft, because it brought the war home to every one. In an all volunteer military, those serving are doing so on their own volition. When it is your son or your daughter who may be ordered to put his or her life on the line against his or her will and against the desires of their parents things look different.
So I can only hope that IF Grandpa Munster gets the job at 1600 Sesame Street that he'll bring back "America's Children For Breakfast Program" in his first term as that would certainly make him a one time wonder and wake up the American parents of those unfortunate enough to be sent to the front lines and raise holy hell. After all, right now it is someone else's war and mom and dad go shopping at the mall, burning the oil those brave soldiers in Iraq are giving their lives and limbs for!

[RTOTrainer]

If your kid has to be forced to serve, I don't wnat him any where near me. Especailly not with a loaded rifle.

[Tumult]

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.....

.....But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...

[GDliberal]

I don't have a lot of faith in the democratic controlled congress but I doubt that they are dumb enough to pass the necessary law that would be required to bring the draft back. Because come the next election they and the party would all be toast.

[desmirl]

A draft now would be twice as unpopular as it was back in 1968. You remember those good times, right? Burn, baby, burn. Today's kids, their parents, and their grandparents would not let the military start dragging unwilling young people, kicking and screaming, into an immoral, unjustified war. Plus, if McCain wins, he still won't have a Republican congress, and he'd need a lot of congressional approval and support to reinstate the draft.

[PaulAbrams]

So, how is he going to fight these wars?
Tell me.

[desmirl]

If enough people get out on the streets--in the manner of 1968. If the screaming, foaming-at­-the-mouth anger of the people spills out and starts scaring the government, McCain (assuming he would be elected) would have to run his Warmongering lust up against a Democrat congress and an enraged populace. Lyndon Baines Johnson saw the handwriting on the wall and ran for cover. Richard Milhous Nixon knew the only way to survive politically (for as long as he did) was institute the draft lottery. It took the anger down a couple notches, and the war in Vietnam started winding down. If McCain saw the country coming to pieces around him, he could do either 1) declare martial law and deal with the consequences of the most heavily-armed populace in the world being seriously unhappy or 2) decide he doesn't need wars both inside and outside the country.

[Thorn]

McCain has come under a lot of criticism for saying merely that "There will be more wars." I don't quite take the point. This does not mean he wants a war of any kind -- especially, as is widely interpreted, he wants war with Iran. I think what he meant is just that. War isn't over. Do you think that, under Obama or Clinton, we will eliminate all war forever? Because THAT would sound awfully naive to me.

[Thorn]

It's strange that a lot of people here seem to think, "Well, I don't like McCain, and I don't like the draft. Therefore McCain likes the draft."

[rawdawgbuffalo]

they need to unifiy the kurds, sunni and shite, just a though on Iraq and the Taliban, they killing 2 birds with one stone

[Thorn]

If you read the papers, or anything (anything at all), you also know that our top military people consistently recommend against a draft. They don't want it. So what are you talking about?

[PaulAbrams]

They do, except occasionally someone floats the idea, and then the administration shuts them up.

Here are the choices:
1) Draft
2) WInd down the war
3) Volunteers to keep up and expand the wars.

#3 is not happening. Just ain't.
Hence it is one of the others. If it is 2, then he is all bullshit about his military posture.

[Thorn]

Actually, he's been fairly clear that it IS option 2. He wants a small, stabilizing presence a la South Korea or Germany.

The last person who actually floated the idea of a draft was a Democratic Congressman -- who then voted against his own resolution. Which was genuinely embarrassing.

I'm taken aback because it seems as though your assertions are based on vague stereotypes of who the candidates are. "McCain? Military posture! Wants wars." That's not coming through if you read what's been going on. (And I mean no disrespect by saying this, honestly.)

[klmebane]

the military people don't want a draft, but ultimately mccain would have to call for one, and he's not worried about it because he isn't the one who will have to train thousands of people who don't want to be there. but, most importantly, whether the military itself wants a draft, if the president says do it, they will. because they don't question the president, they just do what he says.

[exhelodrvr]

Yes; it's just a dishonest statement made to to create an inaccurate picture of Sen McCain.

[RTOTrainer]

I agree.

It's also a bit of projection, I think. Wishful thinking. I'm fairly certain that Mr. Abrams (who I hope is no relation of GEN Creighton Abrams) wants a draft to be passed to amplify ill feelings on this war and war in general. Perhaps even an anti-military radical who'd like to see the destruction it would do to the Services.