Despite rumors, Washington insiders say forget about draft revival
By Sumana Chatterjee
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Ignore all those Internet rumors: Despite the U.S. military's desperate need for more troops, there's no chance that the Bush administration or Congress will resurrect the draft, short of a new Pearl Harbor.
It's just too unpopular politically. Moreover, military experts say that conscription would hurt the quality and morale of the armed forces.
Instead, the Pentagon is examining other options, such as calling up more members of the National Guard and reserves, extending tours of active duty, shifting manpower within divisions and moving troops from Europe and Asia to meet the urgent needs in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, the Army announced Wednesday that it would call up 5,600 former active-duty personnel for another round of service.
"A draft? It's just not going to happen," said Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services personnel subcommittee, agreed: "There is very little support in Congress for reinstating the draft."
Perhaps those comments will help steady the nerves of many Americans apparently rattled by an e-mail that's circulating nationwide. It says that legislation is pending in Congress that would reinstitute the draft for the first time since 1973, starting as early as spring 2005. It also says that the administration is "quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections."
There's a kernel of truth to the allegation - there is a bill pending that would restart the draft. But the Bush administration is opposed to it, as are Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties in Congress. Everyone remotely in a position to know is quite sure the bill is going nowhere.
"I don't know anyone in the executive branch of the government who believes that it would be appropriate or necessary to reinstitute the draft," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in April.
The bill's primary sponsor is Rep. Charles Rangel, a liberal Democrat from New York who represents Harlem. Even he admitted that his bill won't pass. He introduced it to get people to discuss who's doing the fighting in Iraq.
"The burdens of war should be fairly shared across all segments of our society and not fall disproportionately on poor communities as they do now," Rangel said in a written statement Wednesday.
To be sure, the Selective Service System, the agency in charge of conscription, remains in business, as it has since 1980, just in case a Pearl Harbor-sized national emergency required massive manpower immediately. All men between 18 and 25 must register, and nearly 14 million currently are.
The Internet rumor cites Selective Service's efforts to fill draft and appeals boards that administer local draft lotteries. Because board members serve 20 years, many who were appointed in the 1980s are being replaced, and there are routine vacancies from attrition to fill, but nothing more, said spokeswoman Alyce Burton.
"There is no big push as a result of gearing up for a draft," she said.
The Selective Service even posted a message to debunk the new-draft myth on its Web site (
http://www.sss.gov).
Moreover, military experts oppose the draft because it could dramatically lower the quality of incoming soldiers. It also could introduce discipline and morale problems like those the military suffered during the Vietnam War. It would raise difficult social questions, such as whether women should continue to be excluded from a draft.
And restarting the draft would be expensive. According to military experts, the Defense Department spends about $100,000 to recruit and train each soldier. Draftees would be less likely to re-enlist, driving up training costs.
Fueling fear of a draft is the concern that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have strained military manpower dangerously. Using emergency powers, the Army temporarily increased its size by 30,000 soldiers over four years. But Congress wants to make sure the added troops are permanent. The House of Representatives voted in May to permanently add 30,000 Army soldiers over the next three years; the Senate voted in June for an additional 20,000 in fiscal 2005. Kerry proposes adding 40,000 troops.
But the Bush administration opposes a permanent increase, contending that the current spike in active-duty personnel is temporary. Instead, the Pentagon is looking to ease manpower shortages by outsourcing noncombat operations to private contractors, extending tours and integrating National Guard units and reserves into active-duty forces. Already, the National Guard and reserves make up about 40 percent of U.S. forces in Iraq.
In addition, the Army announced this week that it will call up 5,600 people who recently left the military but still have obligations as reservists. Army officials admitted that these are involuntary recruits, but they say the reservists were aware of the obligation when they signed up.
That's a long way from reviving the draft.
"It ain't going to happen," said Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration who's now with the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank.
"It's an urban legend, and urban legends die hard," said Rep. Ed Schrock, R-Va., a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
<a href='http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9049861.htm' target='_blank'>Knight Ridder Washington Bureau</a>
