To students, draft is a very frightening word. It implies certain death or injury in a war. A war which, college students that we are, is by default -- and take your pick here -- unjust, immoral, evil, imperialistic, oil-driven, politically-motivated or, to quote Kofi Annan, just plain "illegal." A draft is not to be taken lightly.
That is why I was at once saddened and infuriated when about one year ago, some particularly insolent students (or teachers; I wouldn't put it past them) barraged the hallways of my former high school with insipid bills purporting that a vote for George Bush is a vote to be drafted. It was a specious argument at best. After all, the war in Iraq is real (John Kerry himself recently realized this, just after hiring Clinton's Paul Begala and CNN's James Carville as advisors), and we are in the thick of it. Kerry has been somewhat consistent in saying that he would not cut and run over there. President Bush maintains that same position, of course.
Unless Kerry admits that he would fight an understaffed war purely to avoid calling up a draft, the logician must conclude that, should troops be needed beyond the voluntary force, a draft will be instated in either a Kerry or a Bush administration. The President of the United States does not dictate how many troops are required in an overseas theater -- events do. And events in Iraq, both tragic and joyous, will continue to occur regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. Kerry's "smarter, more sensitive" war, as he termed it, will not somehow enable the same war, against the same enemy, to be fought with so few troops that it would make a difference between necessitating a draft or not.
This is why I don't quite understand Kerry's newest political trick: scaring students into voting for him by conjuring up emotions associated with the draft. To be fair, that specifically is John Edwards' job. He has taken to calling the Iraq War a quagmire, a Vietnam-era term with an ugly history. Kerry himself has espoused a baser line of attack, akin to the aforementioned inflammatory posters. At a recent rally in West Palm Beach, Kerry presented two new campaign tactics and one new promise.
First, he has begun referring to al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden as Osama bin Forgotten. If that's not presidential, I don't know what is.
Second, he raised the possibility that a draft could be reinstated if voters re-elect President Bush.
Finally, he promised that he would not reinstate the draft if elected.
Why Kerry has sunk to the level of his more fanatical surrogates I cannot begin to divine. Blame Carville. Blame his low poll numbers. But any way you cut it, these are bad moves. If Kerry is elected, will he feel beholden to his no-draft promise made that day to those folks in West Palm Beach? Will the value of a Kerry promise be tested if the situation in Iraq deteriorates?
The smarter question is, do we really want a President who will tie his hands like that for a few extra votes in a swing state?
When asked about the possibility of a draft under Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld answered that he believes it is not is, nor will it be, nor would it necessarily be to our military advantage as, he says, our Army works best with its volunteer professionals.
It seems, in any event, that a draft is more likely with Kerry in office. Recall that the two bills in Congress which would make military service by both sexes mandatory (at an 'induction age' of 18-26), are sponsored by members of the Democrat party: bills S89 by Hollings of North Carolina and HR163 by Rangel of New York. President Bush hasn't expressed any indication that he would sign such bills.
The President has a better idea: first, realize that the situation in Iraq is difficult, as are all wars, but not insurmountable for the current force. We are not outnumbered, we are not outgunned, and we are not outsmarted. But we are, presently, outmaneuvered. Amelioration in those few Iraqi towns not run by Iraq's sovereign government will require a change of tactics, not extra battalions working under the existing stratagem. Next, free up U.S. troops from ineffectual, Cold War-era positions so that they may be ready to deploy if they are absolutely needed.
Both of these items are being carried out; the latter to the tune of 60,000 newly stateside soldiers. And John Kerry, the master wordsmith, the monarch of nuance, has run out of things to say.
