"We've got a back-door-draft goin on in America today." - Kerry

How do we know a new draft is in the works?

Nationwide, long-dormant draft boards – local committees that decide who must fight and who is exempted -- have been quietly reactivated and restaffed (Lindorff, "Oiling Up the Draft Machine," Salon.com, Nov. 3, 2003). The Selective Service says it is is prepared to call up soldiers within 193 days after a draft is launched.
A consensus behind conscription is building on Capitol Hill. Senators Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) and Joseph Biden (D-Del), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are among many prominent politicians suddenly calling for a "national debate" on the draft (Washington Post, Apr. 22, 2004).Open supporters of the draft include Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC) and Reps.Charles Rangel (D-NY), Nydia Velazsquez (D-NY), and Pete Stark (D-Cal). Even retired General Wesley Clark says a draft is necessary. (The Hill, July 2004)

HR 163 and S 89, Democrat-sponsored bills to restore conscription, are quietly working their way through committee. Reportedly, Republicans are ready to sign on as soon as they get the nod from the Bush administration (The Hill, Oct. 7, 2003).

Op-eds and columns openly arguing for the draft are beginning to appear in influential publications (see, e.g., "Why We Need the Draft Back," Washington Post (July 1, 2004), by former ass't sec'y of defense Noel Koch).

Why do powerful elites and politicians want to reinstate the draft?

Right now the US military is bogged down in Iraq, fighting a brutal war of attrition that has stretched the 1.4-million strong, all-volunteer military to the limit. The Army has 10 active-duty divisions; nine of these are either in Iraq or Afghanistan, have just returned, or are about to be deployed there ("Troop Supply Getting Thin," AP, Apr. 29, 2004). Hundreds of US soldiers are killed or wounded every month. Tours are being extended and enlistments prolonged. Troops are even being transferred to Iraq from strategically critical US bases in South Korea. The Pentagon's Defense Policy Board has concluded that current troop strength is inadequate for current and future needs (Fin. Times Sept. 26, 2004).

While conceding that the Iraq war has been a military and political disaster, the US power elite -- ranging from George Bush, to the New York Times editorial board, to Presidential candidate John Kerry -- agrees that we must "stay the course" in Iraq. In plain language, that means crushing resistance to the occupation. To subdue a population that wants us to leave, (Financial Times, May 20, 2004), and is willing to fight for independence, will require many more troops -- as many as 500,000, according to some Pentagon estimates (McGovern, "Calling for Backup," TomPaine.com, May 7, 2004).

Meanwhile, under cover of the "war on terror," the US has greatly increased its worldwide military presence during the past two years: 176,000 troops are now deployed in military bases and "peacekeeping operations" overseas (Raleigh News & Observer, Mar. 28, 2004).

Official US policy now calls for waging "pre-emptive war" and effecting "regime change" wherever threats to American power and security are perceived (National Security Strategy of the U.S.A., Sept. 2002). Any new war -- with or without an escalation of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan -- would require many thousands of new soldiers. No President will tolerate an inability to wage war as and where he sees fit.

It's not hard to connect the dots. The logic of current US foreign policy, which is globally aggressive, requires more "boots on the ground." Enlistment is barely sufficient to maintain current troop levels. Only draftees can fill the gap.

If powerful people support the draft, why isn't it happening already?
It's an election year, and the draft is volatile issue. That's why the Bush administration continues to maintain that current troop levels are sufficient, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Once the election's over, however, a swift, powerful bipartisan push to reintroduce conscription can be anticipated.

Will it make any difference if the Democrats win in November?

Probably not. John Kerry, a member of the hawkish Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), supports escalating the war in Iraq and calls for enhancing US military presence worldwide. As a former war hero and Vietnam protester, Kerry would be a far more effective advocate for conscription than Bush. Though Kerry has said he would not call for a renewed draft, as President he would be subject to the same military logic as Bush -- he cannot sustain globally aggressive policies without finding the bodies.

Kerry calls military service "the highest form of national service." Not coincidentally, a proposal for universal "National Service" is available on his campaign web site. Significantly, the proposal closely resembles a recent DLC blueprint (Magee, From Selective Service to National Service: A Blueprint for Citizenship and Security in the 21st Century, 2003) that antidraft advocates see as a steath plan for staged reintroduction of conscription.

Kerry's proposal does not mention a military draft -- yet -- but it appears to makes financial aid for college contingent on two years' national service beginning at the age of 18. Incenting youth to join the armed forces is manifestly the heart of the initiative. Even without a draft as such, Kerry's program represents a massive militarization of young men and women that provides ample opportunities for indoctrination, along with near-coercive incentives to join up.

Hey guys, good news: The House bill introduced last year for a draft was totally shot down yesterday. Only two people voted in favor of it. This gives me hope that if another bill like this is introduced in the next couple years it shouldn't have a chance at all.