It’s usually a bad sign when the mainstream media starts running stories like this; it signals the beginning legitimization of the idea. An excerpt:

“Though President Bush and Senator John Kerry talk about it in only the most glancing ways – the president pledged to defeat terrorism with ‘an all-volunteer army’ during Thursday’s presidential debate – many people across the country are wondering just who will fight the nation’s wars.

“There is good reason to ask. By most accounts, the military, particularly the Army, has been spread thin by America’s global commitments, and signs of strain are mounting.

“More than one-third of nearly 3,900 former soldiers mobilized under a special wartime program have resisted their call-ups. The Army National Guard fell nearly 10 percent short of its 2004 recruiting goal of 56,000 enlistees. The Army, concerned about recruiting, has eased some standards. And there have been bipartisan calls in Congress to expand the Army by more than 20,000 soldiers.

“Just months ago, Pentagon officials suggested that a new draft could be avoided if recruitment and retention numbers stayed high. But as fighting in Iraq escalates, signs are growing that those numbers may not be adequate in the coming years. Thus, the new talk about a draft….

“So maintaining a level of 135,000 ground troops in Iraq, another 20,000 in Afghanistan and a smaller force in the Balkans, while a garrison of 36,000 (soon to be reduced) guards the Korean armistice line and other troops maintain bases in Europe, creates a major strain. The current system is already drawing on Guard and reserve units to fill the gap. What is more, some military officers and political figures have long questioned whether 135,000 troops is a large enough force to prevail in Iraq.

“What if another big deployment is needed? Estimates vary widely on how many additional troops might be required, but some analysts say the current overall force could easily fall short by more than 70,000 ground troops….

“‘You might be able to squeeze more people out of pockets of the military, but the truth is, there is a limit to what you can do there,’ said Gary Schmitt, executive director of the Project for the New American Century, a conservative group that favors permanent expansion of the Army….

“But the most striking shortcoming in both plans, experts say, is their lack of allowance for another major conflict – if war erupts on the Korean Peninsula, or tensions with Iran boil over, or the United States suffers a major terrorist attack.

“A Pentagon-appointed panel recently concluded that the military would lack the forces to handle its current combat and stabilization operations if new crises emerged. The report, which has not been made public, apparently did not address the issue of a draft. But some policy makers have said it points to the potential need for one.”
=======================

Let us remember that if the Bush Administration had not undertaken the criminal and immoral invasion of Iraq, we would not be in this situation. The only hope is a change in the amount of irrational bellicosity emanating from Washington, D.C.