Avoiding the draft
PRESIDENT BUSH and Senator John Kerry agree on at least one national security issue: the nation does not need a draft to fill the ranks of the military. But the country does need a more honest discussion from the candidates of how to meet the nation's far-flung commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, and the Balkans without resorting to conscription.
The current system is not working. It relies too heavily on reservists and National Guard forces serving long overseas active-duty stretches. A predictable result is that the Guard has failed this year to meet its recruiting goals. On the home front, many of these soldiers serve as first responders, leaving local fire, police, and emergency medical units understaffed.
The Army, the service stretched thinnest, has ordered soldiers to serve longer terms than they had agreed to and has called back individual ready reservists who have not even been training with reserve units. One of the most dangerous last resort measures has been to shift GIs from South Korea to other war zones, sending a message to North Korea that could possibly be mistaken for a diminished commitment to the South's security.
All of this has fed rumors that a revival of the draft is in the offing. Bush took pains to deny this during last Friday's debate, and Republican House leaders stretched the rules to bring a draft bill to a vote.
The bill was overwhelmingly rejected, as it should have been. A draft is not necessary or advisable at this time.
Kerry, who also opposes a draft, has at least recognized that the active-duty Army needs more troops. He has called for the addition of 40,000 soldiers, about a 10 percent increase. This could be done on a voluntary basis in several ways. Recruiters could lower their enlistment standards, as was done during the 1990s when the booming economy made military service less attractive. Or Congress could raise pay and benefits. Finally, both the Navy and the Air Force have more personnel than they need, and there is already a program to shift some to the Army.
The United States could get by with the force levels it now has if it does not enter into wars like the one in Iraq without more allies willing to contribute substantial numbers of troops. For the time being, however, it should meet its commitments in a way that does not threaten South Korea's security or undermine public support for the Guard, the reserves, and the volunteer Army. That requires expanding the active-duty Army. Between now and Nov. 2, Bush and Kerry should explain to the public exactly which measures they would favor to accomplish this. Candid talk about nondraft alternatives is the best way to squelch the draft rumor.
