Given
that next year is an election year, it is probably unlikely that a
serious effort to reinstitute conscription - a military draft - will
happen anytime soon. But a number of circumstances make it a
possibility once the election is finished. Those who value freedom and
an effective national defense should be aware of the dangers.
Recent events in Iraq, including the attack on convoys in the town
of Samarra that led to deadly firefights, suggest that U.S. occupation
forces face something like a classic guerrilla war.
If that turns out to be true, it matters little whether the
guerrillas are Baathist remnants of Saddam loyalists, foreign jihadists
or locals who have become disillusioned with the American occupation.
It also matters little whether the guerrilla command is centralized or
radically decentralized. What is important is that military doctrine
suggests that defeating a guerrilla force requires overwhelming
numerical superiority - some say 10-1, some say 20-1.
If U.S. forces have to fight a guerrilla war, then, much larger
numbers of troops - who will not be available for policing, supporting
democracy or reconstructing infrastructure - will be required.
Considering normal rotation schedules, three times that larger number
(some training in the States, some preparing to deploy, some preparing
to return home) will have to be assigned to Iraqi operations. Nobody
knows what effect this will have on enlistment and re-enlistment rates,
or morale, but the effects over the next year or so could be
substantial.
Add the fact that the United States still maintains troops in more
than 120 countries and that people up to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld
have worried, albeit guardedly, that U.S. forces may be stretched too
thinly to accomplish all their missions, and you can see an attraction
to conscription.
A bill, HR 163, to establish universal national service, for both
men and women in military or alternative service, was introduced
earlier this year, sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-Harlem, but it
didn't go anywhere.
There's a pattern. Columnist and Cato Institute senior fellow Doug
Bandow told us that mostly Democrats talk openly about restoring a
draft (or a compulsory national service system), but an increasing
number of Republicans are quietly urging them on.
According to a Nov. 8 article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the
Selective Service System early in November put a notice on its Web page
noting that "[i]f a military draft becomes necessary, approximately
2,000 Local and Appeals Boards throughout America" would have to be
formed and invited applications. A couple of days later the notice was
eliminated without explanation.
The SSS Annual Performance Plan for 2004 includes more ambitious
plans than the system has had in decades, including conducting an Area
Office Prototype Exercise to test the Selective Service activation
process. Although the House wanted to increase its annual budget to $28
million from $26 million (those frugal Republicans!), the Senate didn't
go along with the budget boost.
Compulsory service of any kind should be anathema in a free country.
The military, after initial apprehension, now prefers a volunteer
system in which it has a chance to properly train people who want to be
there. And policy-makers remember that anti-Vietnam War opposition
almost disappeared after the draft was stopped.
However, there have always been people in government who hanker
after conscription, and events in the next year or so could begin to
make the idea of compulsion rather than recruitment look attractive.
Just a heads-up - for now.