I'm not arguing that a draft is in the works; any draft-planning is almost certainly contingency-based. I do think it needs to be recognized as a real possibility, though.

For example, how would we respond if Iran cracked down on the moderates, and credibly indicated possession of a nuclear arsenal? Without the moderates, our diplomatic choices are limited, and if they indicated that they were pissed-off at the US, we would have to take a very serious look at military confrontation.

Our utilization of stop-loss and IRR don't inspire a great deal of confidence in our ability to quickly respond to a growing threat. If we found ourselves in a situation requiring troop levels comparable to Iraq, I don't see how some sort of draft could be avoided.

Do I think a draft is imminent? No. But it's definitly on my radar as a possibility. In fact, I think it would be a great debate question: "You've both indicated that your respective administrations would not institute a draft. Given that our current military committments have already stretched thin our Armed Forces, how would you respond to a threat that was deemed 'imminent'?"

You raise a good and fair question. Which is the exact opposite of the scaremongering being engaged in by the Kerry campaign.

Yet another reason not to vote for him - if he gets elected and the scenario you described happens, how can he possibly reinstitute the draft, even if it is obviously our only last best resort? Anyone with aspirations to lead in a time of war should not being engaging in this type of campaign scare tactic.

But the same question could be asked of Bush. How can he insist that a draft won't be reinstated, when reasonable people can see that the possibility exists?

They've both painted themselves into a corner, but your knock on Kerry can be applied to Bush, as well. What will Bush say when the draft becomes necessary? As I see it, the only tenable action would be to plead 'unforeseen circumstances', but that rings pretty hollow.

The only pro-Bush argument you can really make is that if a draft becomes necessary, it's better that Bush is President, because he will be unencumbered by re-election concerns. On the other hand, limiting his ability to grow the military undercuts the whole doctrine of preemption.

I would agree with you, except that Bush and his people have been careful to say that there are no plans for reinstating the draft, but that it would be re-evaluated if necessary. Funny thing is, Kerrys says the same thing, right after PROMISING no draft:

After saying he would not reinstate the draft, Mr. Kerry quickly modified his stance to leave open that possibility if "the United States of America faced the kind of global attack or conflagration where everybody in America understood through an open democratic process we needed to defend this nation."

Then they're both being disingenious. It's like telling your parents you'll be home by curfew, unless something happens... then heading off to a keggar.

It's our job, as citizens and critical thinkers, to think of situations in which the draft would need to be reinstated, and work backwards. In other words, situations A, B, and C will create the need for a draft. Which man, if president, will keep us out of those situations?

The question isn't whether the draft will be reinstated. The question is who will make the decisions that render the need for a draft moot. This is where the focus of the draft debate should be.

There is a difference:

Kerry camp:
1. Bush has secret plans for a draft.
2. I promise there won't be a draft if you elect me.
3. Weasely afterthought small print disclaimer - unless we really really really need to have one.

Bush camp:
1. There are no plans for a draft.
2. We don't need a draft right now and in fact more untrained, unwilling soldiers would hurt not help.
3. If we get to a point where we need to reconsider, we will. We aren't there right now.

I don't see how Bush is being disingenuous on this. He isn't the one promising no draft. He has made solid arguments against having a draft. He has said that future events may require reevaluation.

Kerry is being a tool and his campaign is behind this concerted effort (go to google, type in Bush reinstate draft - see how many lefty voices are singing the tune) at scaring voters - especially the young ones who are now backing Bush.

Except that Bush's point 3 is also a weasly disclaimer. His position is basically that the US doesn't need a draft because an all volunteer force is ideal. In fact, I can't find any quotes where his administration says that a situation may arise that would require a draft.

But, really, his position is disingenuous because he portrays a draft as a remote possibility while, simultaneously, activting the Selective Service machinery.

For years, the Selective Service has been dormant. Community draft review boards, while existent, have had many vacancies. Suddenly, there is a push to fill the draft boards, and the Selective Service receives a large budget allocation.

Personally, I think this is responsible planning. It doesn't mean that a draft is imminent, but it does indicate that the possibility of a draft is greater than it was during the Cold War and the Gulf War.

For them to make concrete (albeit contigent) draft preparation, while pretending the possibility of the draft is just as remote as it's abolishment, is what is disingenuous.

As an addendum, I think Kerry understands this. Unfortunately, I think he, and his team, have made a stragtic decision that the voters won't understand the nuances.

Not to mention that a declaration you won't do something, unless certain circumstances arise, is pretty worthless unless you define what those circumstances are.

I realize that I am (or is it just my readership?)perceived as nuance and sublety challenged (hi CJ! ha.) but I do see a distinction between a false promise not to have a draft and an honest statement that there are no current plans for one. Kerry quote (I know, I know, Washington Times, but still, it is a quote):

"I will tell you this: I will not reinstate the draft."...After saying he would not reinstate the draft, Mr. Kerry quickly modified his stance to leave open that possibility if "the United States of America faced the kind of global attack or conflagration where everybody in America understood through an open democratic process we needed to defend this nation."

I also take the fact you mentioned that there isn't any discussion of what would be involved in the decision to reinstate the draft to be a pretty clear indicator that Bush means it when he says we don't need it and haven't reached a point where we should consider it.

As for putting the wheels in motion, I would like to agree with you that responsible planning is what is going on. It is too bad that the Presidents opponents would choose to make political hay (hardly what I would call a strategic decision based on voter's understanding of nuance - something more neutral than scaremongering would qualify but not this) of such a thing, even more sad since I don't think that that is what is going on. Here is some data from FactCheck.org on the draft:

Basic Facts About Draft

Let's start with a few essential facts. Military conscription ended in the US in 1973. Males aged 18 through 25 still are required to register with the Selective Service System, but it would take an act of Congress to resume actual conscription into military service.

That's not likely. Here's what Selective Service says on its website as of June 14 (emphasis added):

Selective Service System: Notwithstanding recent stories . . . on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft.

Both the White House and the Pentagon have denied repeatedly that they're planning any return to military conscription. Here's what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said May 17, addressing the conservative Heritage Foundation (emphasis added):

Rumsfeld: I can't imagine our country going back to a draft. We don't need it. We're able to attract and retain wonderful people the way we're doing it as long as we provide the appropriate incentives. And certainly this is a country that's wealthy enough to do that.

The Scare Story

A different -- and misleading -- story is being circulated by e-mail and posted on any number of mostly left-leaning websites, claiming that the Bush administration is "quietly trying" to pass legislation to reactivate the draft, and that $28 million has been added to the Selective Service budget this year to prepare for a military draft that could start "as early as June 15, 2005."

The message is false or misleading on several counts.

--The bills are not being pushed. It's quite true that the two bills mentioned would require both men and women aged 18 through 25 to perform a two-year period of "national service," which incidentally could be either military or non-military service. But the bills are sponsored only by Democrats, and there's not the slightest evidence that the Bush administration is pushing for them, quietly or otherwise.

One bill is HR 163 , whose principal sponsor is Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York. It has 14 co-sponsors, all of them Democrats in a Congress controlled by Republicans. The bill was dead on arrival: it sits in a House subcommittee with no hearings or votes scheduled and no action expected.

In fact, Rangel told FactCheck.org through his spokesman Emile Milne that even he isn't pushing for passage, let alone Bush (emphasis added):

Rep. Rangel: I'm not pushing this bill . It's up to the President to come to me when he needs it.

The identical Senate bill, S. 89 , introduced by Democratic Sen. Ernest Hollings, and also was DOA. Not one other senator has co-sponsored it. It also sits in committee with no action scheduled or expected.

Both bills in question were drawn up before the Iraq war started, mostly to make a political point. Rangel said he acted to highlight Democratic objections to use of military force against Saddam Hussein. He wrote , "I truly believe that decision-makers who support war would more readily feel the pain of conflict and appreciate the sacrifice of those on the front lines if their children were there, too."

The Selective Service Budget has not been increased. The scare story also gets it wrong when it claims the budget for the Selective Service is being increased by $28 million in 2004. In fact, the Selective Service System's budget is flat. Its total operating budget was $26 million in fiscal year 2003 (which ended last Sept. 30), and is $26 million for fiscal 2004 as well. Furthermore, the President is asking for $26 million again for fiscal year 2005, and the Office of Management and Budget actually projects that the agency will shrink in size from 161 employees to 156 next year. That's hardly gearing up for a draft.

Military experts say a draft doesn't make sense. Numerous news accounts have quoted military experts as saying a draft would cause more problems for the military than it would solve. Here's one example, from an excellent story in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last month (emphasis added):

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "The draft would be the Army's worst nightmare," said retired Lt. Col. Leonard Wong, now a research professor at the U.S. Army War College at Carlisle Barracks. "We have a high quality Army because we have people who want to be in it. Our volunteer force is really a professional force. You can't draft people into a profession."

The Selective Service System figures it would take 183 days from the the time an order comes down to begin a draft until the first conscript reports for training. Training conscripts and forming them into military units would take many months more to meet the requirements of today's high-tech military. If more trained uniformed men and women are needed, it would be much faster to mobilize additional National Guard units. The Post-Gazette reports that of 38 Army National Guard combat brigades only three have been called to active service and four others were mobilizing, leaving 31 upon which to draw. (Note: National Guard Spokesman Scott Woodham confirmed these figures when FactCheck.org inquired on June 15.)

Other Dubious Claims

The e-mail ominously states that "the Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions." But it turns out that's nothing new: the Selective Service has been trying to fill vacancies on local boards for several years, and the Selective Service isn't part of the Pentagon anyway -- it's an independent agency.

It's true that a notice appeared briefly last year on a Department of Defense website urging anyone who might be willing to serve as an unpaid volunteer on a local draft board to contact the Selective Service System in Washington. The notice touched off a flurry of news reports speculating that a renewed draft might be in the works, after which the notice quickly disappeared. (A copy of the notice was preserved here. The spot on the DOD website from which it disappeared is here.)

As an Associated Press story later explained, however, the search for volunteer board members has been on since 1999 when many original board members started hitting their 20-year term limits. The current board system was established in 1979.

Here's my problem with the Deomcrats' "Bush is going to reinstate the draft" meme:
1) The only ones who are pushing a draft (introducing legislation) are Democrats.

2) The meme is designed sole for political purposes. If a draft does come about under Bush (for whatever reason, even a nuking of a city) then the Democrats will cry "Aha, see we told you." If there isn't a draft, then no one will remember this; it'll take a back seat to whatever next celebrity disrobes in public/gets caught cheating/winds up a drug addict. Essentially it's all positive for the D's, which is fine for politics as sport, but I don't like it when such play is about national security during wartime.

First off, my bad for using inaccurate information. I was taken in by those damn left-leaning 'independent new organizations.'

That said, I don't really see any differences, nuanced or otherwise, between the Bush and Kerry positions on the draft.

Kerry says no draft unless extraordinary circumstances require it. Bush says there are no current plans for a draft, leaving open the possibility of a draft at some future date.

They have the same position: no draft, unless some really bad shit goes down. I don't understand why you think Kerry's position is dishonest or a false promise.

See - that is why you should get your information exclusively from pajama clad bloggers.

OK, seriously, I will stipulate that there is no effective difference in their positions - no draft barring unforseen circumstances. I just wish that this could be talked about in terms of, as you called it, "responsible planning" as opposed to scaremongering. Kerry isn't being dishonest saying "I won't have a draft*" - he gives himself that asterisk which denotes the out that I quoted.

The only difference for me is a partisan observation. He is playing on fears of a draft while reserving the same right to re-evaluate the need for one that Bush is. He is no more or less likely than Bush to reinstitute the draft since the conditions for doing so would be based on undefined circumstances beyond either of their control. The partisan in me wants to call this dishonest, but I suppose it could more charitably called opportunistic electioneering. As a partisan, I can grudgingly accept that.

Robert - to be fair it was a political stunt for the Dems to introduce legislation calling for a draft. Not that that puts a very positive light on their actions, as I tend to agree with you about the importance of the subject.

Interesting to note that the only candidate to mention the draft in the debate was Bush.

Again, the President gave us an implied "no plans for a draft" without the weasly disclaimer. At least, that's what I got from his explicit mention of an all-volunteer force.

Kerry, wisely, stayed away from the whole thing, although I'm sure his surrogates will be floating some test balloons in the next couple of days.

I am sure Bush's handlers told him he needed to address the issue after the hysteria of the week. Kerry, as you said, wisely avoided the topic. By my count, he also said "Vietnam" only one (or was it zero) times - although it looked like he caught himself once as he was about to say it.