Pentagon Can't Kill Draft Idea

[2RHPZ]

Pentagon Can't Kill Draft Idea
Associated Press
June 1, 2004

WASHINGTON - No matter what the Pentagon says, the idea of restarting the military draft never seems to go away. Defense officials say they don't want it. And polls show the American public doesn't either. So why do lawmakers keep suggesting that conscription be reconsidered?
Since the fall of 2002, when the Bush administration asked Congress to approve force against Iraq, the Defense Department has said repeatedly that it sees no reason to abandon the all-volunteer, professional military and return to the days when thousands of untrained men were forced into service.
"I don't know anyone in the executive branch of the government who believes it would be appropriate or necessary," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said again recently.
Recent polling indicates four out of five Americans surveyed oppose resuming the draft, which would appear to seal its fate as a dead issue during an election year.
"It's an idea whose time may never come," said Charles Moskos, a Northwestern University sociologist who studies military issues.
Still, lawmakers keep questioning whether perhaps a draft may be needed, even as proposed legislation on it goes nowhere.
Analysts say there are two main reasons the idea keeps coming back. One is that even with its 1.4 million active-duty volunteers and thousands more reservists, the United States seems to have too few troops for the wars it is fighting.
The other is a kind of guilt that the cost of the wars is being paid by very few Americans, analysts said.
The war in Iraq, coming on top of the global war on terrorism, has caused unprecedented strain on U.S. armed forces. The Defense Department has stopped thousands of soldiers from leaving when their enlistment times were up, made some stay longer in Iraq than the promised year, made unprecedented use of the National Guard and Reserve forces and is bringing troops from Korea for the first time in decades as it struggles to maintain more than 138,000 in Iraq.
Officials say they can continue using those same methods, as well as incentives to get sufficient volunteers. Rumsfeld further says the high amount of military activity now probably is temporary - "a spike."
But even if most troops come out of Iraq within several years, the war against al-Qaida and other terror networks could last decades. And there is no predicting how many more sizable military campaigns there might be over that time.
"If we in fact, as the president says and I agree, are in a generational war here against terrorism, it's going to require resources," says Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel. "The mission must match the resources."
And there is also the question of who bears the burden. That's a point repeatedly made by another draft supporter, Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription.
"Who is doing all of the fighting?" Hagel asked. "Should we continue to burden the middle class who represents most all of our soldiers, and the lower middle class ... burden them with the fighting and the dying if in fact this is a generational - probably 25-year war?"
"It's not a shared burden," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., noting that most Americans have sacrificed little through the Afghan and Iraq wars that started after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.
The military drafted conscripts during the Civil War, both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. The Selective Service System was reincorporated in 1980 to maintain a registry of 18-year-old men, but call-ups have not occurred since the Vietnam War.
Every time the idea of the draft resurfaces in the news, there is a small public furor, and cynics are sure the government is secretly planning conscription behind their backs.
Moskos calls it a case of "patriotism lite" - people say they're patriotic but are "not willing to sacrifice anything."
Elizabeth Kier, a University of Washington professor and defense specialist, also sees it in reverse.
"If you don't ask anything of the country, then the country is much more willing to go along with it," she said.
"I don't see it as politically possible," Kier said of a draft. "But I do think it allows people to talk about a lot of important things - shared sacrifice, greater responsibility of citizenship."

[786mine]

but why would it?!

[mocking_loudly_died]

Draft? - I'm a coward though....wait I live in Australia - woo hoo!

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I think the US would only introduce the draft if there was another terrorist outrage on US soil I think the public would find it hard to swallow otherwise. If you do introduce it then we in Scotland can look forward to a load of Brads and Chads coming to our shores to study for extended tours, some of the last lot of daddy's boys are still here. There is a gay Texan art dealer who stays near me and this is the very reason he came here.

[Mark Sman]

I am opposed to a draft in every way shape and form no matter what.

A country that can't defend itself with volunteers can't defend itself in the first place.

I don't think that is the situation in the US. As far as I know most services are meeting their recuiting goals. We may need to ramp up the amount of training we have available so that we can train and keep more people. We may have to work on retention goals as well.

The pace of operations is obviously hectic, and we need to draw that down.

The situation right now might be like what Winston Churchill said at one time. "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

If we can pull many of the reserve and guard units out of operations in the next year, that staement might hold.

By they by. Sorry about dumping a bunch of people overseas last time this happened. I hope it doesn't happen again.

[BlackRain]

A country that can't defend itself with volunteers can't defend itself in the first place.




Very true. There was a draft in WWII in the USA. However, most of the eventual 7 million men under arms volunteered for service. My father-in-law says of his time in WWII; "If you did not sign up to fight, people looked at you like you were an enemy agent".

This country is blessed with wealth and freedom, it is a shame if self centered individuals believe that it is not worth fighting for.

Just my 2 cents.

[American Patriot]

There is never ever ever going to be a draft if Bush is in power.

[Royal]

A country that can't defend itself with volunteers can't defend itself in the first place.

The USSR seemed to manage fairly well between '43 and '45, as for that matter did the UK in 1940...

[UkrainianAmerican]

I wouldnt mind a draft if there was a need for it, but before draft they should pull some troops from Asia and Europe, and see if thats is enough troops.

[Fredd00]

The USSR seemed to manage fairly well between '43 and '45, as for that matter did the UK in 1940...

With the great aid comming from Lend Lease programme

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

The USSR seemed to manage fairly well between '43 and '45, as for that matter did the UK in 1940...

With the great aid comming from Lend Lease programme
The US did get most of our gold reserves as security and we did pay back in both cash and good will.

[HonduranGuy87]

This country is blessed with wealth and freedom, it is a shame if self centered individuals believe that it is not worth fighting for.

Yeah it's a shame people don't care about the county much any more. They just want to get fat, have huge homes, lots of cars, wait SUVS, and have lots of money. They wouldn't ever volunteer to join the military, and would find any way possible to get out of the draft if one was ever started again. That's why the U.S. had to use National Guard units in Iraq. If there was more people who volunteered to join the military, the U.S. would be in greater shape militarly, but it's just people people not wanting to join the military. Clinton stripped away alot at the military. When Clinton was in Power, the military got weaker.

[OldRecon]

"Quantity is a quality in itself"
In a really BIG war you'll never get enough manpower with volunteers only.
As for can't defend yourself with a conscript army, the German armies of several wars during the later half of the 19th century + both WW-1 and WW-2 were basically conscript in nature (military service being compulsory for fit males of the right age group).
Yet at least one historian have hailed the Wehrmacht of WW-2 as "the most professional body of armed men in history" (or something thereabouts).
In combination with its size the German army of 1914 was also more than capable enough of giving the then fully professional BEF quite a hard time (though the "Old contemptibles" also extracted a fearfull toll on their German opponents).
The conscript Germans in that war also generaly proved tactically more adept than their mainly voluntary British opponents for much of WW-1.
The leadership at the top of the German army during WW-1 also seem to have been more receptive to advice and experiences from lover ranks serving on the front lines, than most of their Allied equvivalents.
The Allied armies of Brittain and France could not have persisted through WW-1 without resorting to conscription either.
Also Petain employed units of French conscripts during the height of the Rif-wars during the 1920's and it seems to have worked quite ok.
The Finnish soldiers defending their country against the Soviets during WW-2 were in majority conscripts.
The IDF is mainly a conscript force and have managed to defend Israeli territory for more than 50 years.
The NVA that won the Vietnam war through persistence were also mainly a conscript force.
The forces defending Nagorno Karabach are also mainly conscript.
The French could not have done as well as they did during the Algerian war without the conscripts.
Though their "shock-"/"fireforce" units were mostly manned by professionals, the use conscripts for static local defence released made professionals available for "fireforce" duties.

....

etc.

[2RHPZ]

Facts Of Warfare, Rumors Of Draft Continue To Build

By RICHARD LARDNER rlardner@tampatrib.com
Published: Jun 5, 2004

TAMPA - With the Army stretched thin by extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, rumors that a military draft soon will be reinstated just won't go away. The White House and Pentagon have said a draft is not needed to bolster U.S. ground forces, but those denials have been qualified with phrases such as ``at the present time.''
Adding grist to the mill are the Army's recent decisions to extend the tours of troops already deployed overseas and temporarily bar soldiers who planned to retire or opt out of the service from doing so.
The situation has left many young men concerned that their plans for college, work or marriage might be upended.
``It sends a shock wave through you,'' said De Vaughn Gow, 19. ``It makes me much more aware of the situation in the world.''
Gow, a business management student at the University of Tampa, said if he were drafted he would go reluctantly.
``It would be a forced obligation rather than personal duty,'' he said. ``But I would give it my all.''
Joey Aldridge, 21, of New Port Richey, said he wouldn't volunteer for military service but wouldn't object if drafted.
``I guess I'd go,'' said Aldridge, who studies computer information technology at St. Petersburg College. ``I wouldn't be too happy about going, but I wouldn't object.''

Politics Produce Talk
Prospects for a military draft are being fueled by politicians in Washington, antiwar groups and Internet chat rooms.
In an online ``Message to America's Students,'' presidential candidate Ralph Nader claims the Pentagon quietly is putting in place the machinery for a draft.
Nader contends it does not matter whether President Bush or John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, wins the White House in November. Both have pledged to keep U.S. troops in Iraq, which means both will be under heavy pressure to bolster the size of the military quickly.
``Young Americans need to know that a train is coming, and it could run over their generation in the same way that the Vietnam War devastated the lives of those who came of age in the '60s,'' Nader said.
Asked what evidence the campaign has that a draft is imminent, Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese cited the open- ended nature of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, pending legislation in Congress to resume the draft and the Pentagon's efforts to recruit draft board members.
Much of the Nader campaign's information comes from the Center on Conscience & War, a 60-year-old organization in Washington that represents the rights of conscientious objectors and is opposed to a draft.
J.E. McNeil, the center's executive director, said military drafts are never fair. Young men with limited economic and educational opportunities have fewer means to escape a draft and end up being cannon fodder, she said.
Regardless of whether Bush or Kerry is president, ``I think it's likely we will have a serious draft bill after November,'' McNeil said.
Legislation to reinstate the draft was introduced in the Senate and House in January 2003; however, both bills have attracted little support in Congress. The measures would require men and women ages 18 to 26 to perform a two-year period of national service, either in the armed forces or in a civilian capacity.
Ilene Zeldin, a spokeswoman for Sen. Fritz Hollings, D- S.C., and author of the Senate bill, said the legislation is ``collecting dust.''
Men ages 18 to 25 now must register with the Selective Service System, a requirement imposed by President Carter in 1980 after the former Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan.
Registration allows for a more organized draft, should the need arise. Women are not required to register.
If there were a draft, college would not be a haven, according to rules established in 1971. Students could postpone induction until the end of their semester, and seniors could delay being drafted until the end of the academic year, according to the Selective Service.

By Law, Boards Must Be Ready
Although there has not been a draft since 1973, when the nation converted to an all-volunteer military, the Selective Service is required to maintain the ability to conduct a draft. This includes recruiting draft board volunteers, an effort that has created the impression a draft is near, said Dan Amon, a Selective Service spokesman.
A draft board consists of five members who determine whether an inductee has a legitimate reason not to be drafted. There are close to 11,000 draft board positions nationwide, Amon said.
A large number of volunteers signed up in the early 1980s for standard 20-year terms and many now are ending. This has created an unusually large number of openings, forcing the Selective Service to actively ``look for a new class,'' Amon said.
Donald Pate, a semiretired accountant from Brandon, has been a draft board member for 12 years. He doesn't expect there will be a draft anytime soon because of the substantial amounts of time and money required to induct, train and equip such a large number of new personnel.
``The war would be over before they could all be processed,'' said Pate, 69. ``I don't see a draft occurring in our future unless something very drastic happens.''
Patrick Mirk, a Tampa lawyer and draft board member since 1990, said the public's concerns about the resumption of a draft are legitimate, but a draft couldn't be instituted without significant public debate.
``The likelihood of a draft happening without warning is pretty small,'' said Mirk, 57. ``A draft would be very unpopular and expensive.''

Recruiting Goals On Track
Army officials say they are on track to meet their fiscal year 2004 goals for recruiting soldiers and retaining troops, which argues against a near- term draft.
According to the Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, Ky., nearly 61,000 soldiers have been recruited so far in fiscal year 2004 for the active and reserve Army. The goal for fiscal year 2004, which ends Sept. 30, is to add 98,200 troops.
``We're pretty certain we'll come in slightly ahead of our mission this year,'' command spokesman Douglas Smith said.
Retention, soldiers signing up for another tour, is a priority for the Army. Without experienced troops, it's a less capable force. Lt. Col. Franklin Childress, a spokesman for the Army's personnel office in Washington, said the Army has re-signed nearly 36,000 soldiers and expects to meet its goal of more than 56,000 by the end of September.
The Florida Army National Guard is similarly well off, spokesman Ron Tittle said. Retention is down slightly, but overall troop strength remains above mandated levels, he said.
The numbers are solid, but recruiting is not easy, Army Staff Sgt. Diego Nova said. Nova is posted at the Tampa South Recruiting Station and said he works long hours to find candidates who meet the Army's standards.
``We need high-quality people,'' he said.
McNeil, of the Center on War & Conscience, is not sold on the figures, noting the Army recently called on the Individual Ready Reserve for help. IRR soldiers have some military obligation remaining but are not attached to a unit and do not train regularly. Dipping into the IRR pool generally is considered a last resort.
For now, young men such as Ryan Palka, 22, of Westchase, watch and wait.
``I don't even see the need of a draft right now. There's not a threat,'' said Palka, who works in sales for Verizon. ``We went over there and took care of what we needed to do, but if it came down to a need for us to go over there, I'd be for it hands down.''

[2RHPZ]

Broken contract

Army conscription by any other name
Last update: 07 June 2004

The United States had an all-volunteer army between 1973 and 2001. In 2001, it no longer did. President Bush gave the military the authority to break its contract with soldiers. Those who signed up for a set period of time could be ordered by their commanders to forget about retirement or returning to civilian life once their tour was over. Under the so-called "stop-loss" policy, those soldiers could be ordered to serve indefinitely, in effect, turning them from volunteers into draftees.
Bush ordered the policy shortly after the attacks of September 2001, in preparation for the assault on Afghanistan. It didn't have much of an impact at first. The policy affected few soldiers -- 994 members of the Army's Special Forces. The mood of the nation and the aim of the policy were such that few people would have disputed the change, which was thought to be temporary and warranted by extraordinary circumstances.
Few people would have imagined that the war on terror would have so quickly been dismissed as a sideshow; that resources to fight it would have been diverted to a war on Iraq, sometimes illegally, as in the case of $700 million Congress had tagged for the war in Afghanistan; that the Iraqi invasion was based on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's untested theory that more technology and fewer soldiers would win the war; or that the possibility of a quagmire wasn't planned for. With maneuvers like these, breaking the contract with American soldiers was only the continuation of deception by other means.
What affected fewer than 1,000 soldiers was extended to National Guard and Reserves in 2002. It has now been extended to much of the Army's 400,000 active-duty service men and women: Any soldier whose unit is slated for deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan within 90 days may not retire or leave the Army even if his or her tour was scheduled to end during that period. Deployment can last up to a year. That means soldiers who've already put in their time and service, including many who have served several tours in Iraq, will be forced to continue serving whether they want to or not.
For those it affects, it is worse than a draft. Exemptions and deferments aside, a draft applies more or less fairly to individuals from all walks of life. Tours of duty were forcibly extended in previous wars, but those extensions, too, applied more equitably and in the context of an army where volunteering was the exception, not the rule -- and conscription a law approved by Congress. In this case, as with so many issues related to the war in Iraq, Congress hasn't had a say. Stop-loss is forced and very selective service that affects those who have already borne the heaviest cost of the war.
This month and last, President Bush has been comparing the so-called war on terror to World War II in a series of speeches to war veterans and war college graduates. The stop-loss policy belies that very comparison. While 16 million Americans wore a uniform during World War II and larger numbers were involved in the war effort on the home front, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have demanded a sacrifice only from the soldiers fighting them and the family of the soldiers sustaining the absences or the losses.
The policy belies other claims, among them Rumsfeld's continued insistence that the nation's armed forces aren't stretched thin and in places where they shouldn't be; or that the policy isn't a stop-gap measure to let President Bush save face during election season while an over-committed military pays the price. If it is a choice between more soldiers or fewer wars, it shouldn't be the administration's choice, but that of Congress -- and that of soldiers, had they still been volunteers.

[Tane Angle]

Maybe they can't kill the rumor because of Senate Bill S89, House Bill 163, and the fact that the Administration initiated stop-loss. Mention stop-loss, and words draft aren't far behind.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[CPL Trevoga]

Broken contract

Army conscription by any other name
Last update: 07 June 2004

The United States had an all-volunteer army between 1973 and 2001. In 2001, it no longer did. President Bush gave the military the authority to break its contract with soldiers. Those who signed up for a set period of time could be ordered by their commanders to forget about retirement or returning to civilian life once their tour was over. Under the so-called "stop-loss" policy, those soldiers could be ordered to serve indefinitely, in effect, turning them from volunteers into draftees.


People, people ..... "Your soul might belong to Jesus, but your ass belongs to Uncle Sam."

[2RHPZ]

BTW, "conscript training" - mandatory military service:

Albania
Algeria
Angola
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Benin
Bermuda
Bhutan
Bolivia
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chile
China(selective)
Colombia
Democratic Republic of Congo
Cote d’Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic (until the 31 Dec 2004)
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Finland
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Guinea
Guinea Bissau
Hungary
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Italy
Kazakhstan
North Korea
South Korea
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Libya
Lithuania
Macedonia
Madagascar
Mali
Mexico
Moldova
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Norway
Paraguay
Peru
Phillipines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Senegal
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Sudan
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
Venezuela
Viet Nam
Yemen
Yugoslavia

[AmericanDude04]

I believe the only way a draft would be brought back would be if we had to fight off China and North Korea at the same time while we have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Then and only then would a draft be brought back. Maybe not even then we might just Nuke the basterds be done with once and for all.

Just my thoughts could be wrong could be right.

[sethen]

There is a gay Texan art dealer who stays near me and this is the very reason he came here.

I suspect most Texans are closet homo******s, after all haven't you heard the saying, " Only steers and queers come from Texas?" Oi Vei!!!!! rofl rofl rofl

[Nizark]

The fockers who keep this draft idea alive are certain people in congress who have, most likely, never served. Hell, there were a few calls froma draft for Gulf War I

[ibstolidude]

Broken contract

Army conscription by any other name
Last update: 07 June 2004

The United States had an all-volunteer army between 1973 and 2001. In 2001, it no longer did. President Bush gave the military the authority to break its contract with soldiers. Those who signed up for a set period of time could be ordered by their commanders to forget about retirement or returning to civilian life once their tour was over. Under the so-called "stop-loss" policy, those soldiers could be ordered to serve indefinitely, in effect, turning them from volunteers into draftees.
Bush ordered the policy shortly after the attacks of September 2001, in preparation for the assault on Afghanistan.
CAG 147 I appreciate your articles but this is BULL****! Many MOS's had been stop loss'd long before 9/11 and well back into the Clinton era. It was nothing "new", it just wasn't common across a wide spectrum of MOS's/specialties.

[Deuterium]

Broken contract

Army conscription by any other name
Last update: 07 June 2004

The United States had an all-volunteer army between 1973 and 2001. In 2001, it no longer did. President Bush gave the military the authority to break its contract with soldiers. Those who signed up for a set period of time could be ordered by their commanders to forget about retirement or returning to civilian life once their tour was over. Under the so-called "stop-loss" policy, those soldiers could be ordered to serve indefinitely, in effect, turning them from volunteers into draftees.
Bush ordered the policy shortly after the attacks of September 2001, in preparation for the assault on Afghanistan.
CAG 147 I appreciate your articles but this is BULL****! Many MOS's had been stop loss'd long before 9/11 and well back into the Clinton era. It was nothing "new", it just wasn't common across a wide spectrum of MOS's/specialties.

He's right. There have other times since the end of the draft that Stop-loss has been used. Even the opposite has been used. Many times in the past first termers have had their contracts ended months early, it was called early-out.

[2RHPZ]

Don´t blame on me, mates! I just brought a story ... ;)


Nathaniel Fick: U.S. military does better without a draft


Nathaniel Fick
July 21, 2004 FICK0721
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- I went to war as a believer in the citizen-soldier. My college study of the classics idealized Greeks who put down their plows for swords, returning to their fields at the end of the war. As a Marine officer in Afghanistan and Iraq, however, I learned that the victors on today's battlefields are long-term, professional soldiers.

Thus the increasing calls for reinstating the draft -- and the bills now before Congress that would do so -- are well intentioned but misguided. Imposing a draft on the military I served in would harm it grievously for years.

I led platoons of volunteers. In Afghanistan, my Marines slept each night in holes they hacked from the rocky ground. They carried hundred-pound packs in addition to their fears of minefields and ambushes, their homesickness, loneliness and exhaustion. The most junior did it for $964.80 per month. They didn't complain, and I never wrestled with discipline problems. Each and every Marine wanted to be there. If anyone hadn't, he would have been a drain on the platoon and a liability in combat.

In Iraq, I commanded a reconnaissance platoon, the Marines' special operations force. Many of my enlisted Marines were college-educated; some had been to graduate school. All had volunteered once for the Marines, again for the infantry, and a third time for recon. They were proud to serve as part of an elite unit. Like most demanding professionals, they were their own harshest critics, intolerant of their peers whose performance fell short.

The dumb grunt is an anachronism. He has been replaced by the strategic corporal. Immense firepower and improved technology have pushed decision-making with national consequences down to individual enlisted men. Modern warfare requires that even the most junior infantryman master a wide array of technical and tactical skills.

Honing these skills to reflex, a prerequisite for survival in combat, takes time -- a year of formal training and another year of on-the-job experience were generally needed to transform my young Marines into competent warriors. The Marine Corps demands four-year active enlistments because it takes that long to train troops and ensure those training dollars are put to use in the field. One- or two-year terms, the longest that would be likely under conscription, would simply not allow for this comprehensive training.

Some supporters of the draft argue that America's wars are being fought primarily by minorities from poor families who enlisted in the economic equivalent of a Hail Mary pass. They insist that the sacrifices of citizenship be shared by all Americans. The sentiment is correct, but the outrage is misplaced. There is no cannon-fodder underclass in the military. In fact, front-line combat troops are a near-perfect reflection of American male society.

Yes, some minority men and women enlist for lack of other options, but they tend to concentrate in support jobs where they can learn marketable skills like driving trucks or fixing jets, not throwing grenades and setting up interlocking fields of machine-gun fire. African-Americans, who constitute nearly 13 percent of the general population, are overrepresented in the military at more than 19 percent -- but they account for only 10.6 percent of infantry soldiers, the group that suffers most in combat. Hispanics, who make up 13.3 percent of the American population, are underrepresented at only 11 percent of those in uniform.

The men in my infantry platoons came from virtually every part of the socio-economic spectrum. There were prep-school graduates and first-generation immigrants, blacks and whites, Muslims and Jews, Democrats and Republicans. They were more diverse than my class at Dartmouth, and far more willing to act on their principles.

The second argument most often advanced for a renewed draft is that the military is too small to meet its commitments. Absolutely true. But the armed forces are stretched thin not from a lack of volunteers but because Congress and the Pentagon are not willing to spend the money to expand the force. Each of the services met or exceeded its recruiting goals in 2003, and the numbers have increased across the board so far this year. Even the Army National Guard, often cited as the abused beast of burden in Iraq, has seen re-enlistments soar past its goal, 65 percent, to 141 percent (the figure is greater than 100 because many guardsmen are re-enlisting early).

Expanding the military to meet additional responsibilities is a matter of structural change: If we build it, they will come. And build it we must. Many of my Marines are already on their third combat deployment in the global war on terrorism; they will need replacing. Increasing the size of the active-duty military would lighten the burden on every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine. Paradoxically, a larger military becomes more sustainable than a smaller one: Fewer combat deployments improves service members' quality of life and contributes to higher rates of enlistment and retention. For now, expanding the volunteer force would give us a larger military without the inherent liabilities of conscription.

And while draft supporters insist we have learned the lessons of Vietnam and can create a fair system this time around, even an equitable draft would lower the standards for enlistees. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was chastised for saying Vietnam-era draftees added no value to the armed forces. But his error was semantic; the statement was true of the system, if not of the individuals who served.

The current volunteer force rejects applicants who score poorly on its entrance aptitude exam, disclose a history of significant drug use or suffer from any of a number of orthopedic or chronic injuries. Any unwilling draftee could easily find a way to fail any of these tests. The military, then, would be left either to abandon its standards and accept all comers, or to remain true to them and allow the draft to become volunteerism by another name. Stripped of its volunteer ideology, but still unable to compel service from dissenters, the military would end up weaker and less representative than the volunteer force -- the very opposite of the draft's intended goals.

Renewing the draft would be a blow against the men and women in uniform, a dumbing down of the institution they serve. The U.S. military exists to win battles, not to test social policy. Enlarging the volunteer force would show our soldiers that Americans recognize their hardship and are willing to pay the bill to help them better protect the nation. My view of the citizen-soldier was altered, but not destroyed, in combat. We cannot all pick up the sword, nor should we be forced to -- but we owe our support to those who do.

Nathaniel Fick, a former Marine captain, is writing a memoir of his military training and combat experience. He wrote this article for the New York Times.