James Joyner looks at a Congressional Budget Office report requested by Congressman John Murtha, -PA about the feasibility and impact of bringing back the draft, and Joyner wonders:
One wonders, then, what he hoped the CBO study would accomplish.
Well, here it is in Time magazine.
Reports indicate that the government is studying the feasibility of reinstituting the draft. Never mind that, once again, these initiatives/studies/legislative proposals come from Democrats who really only want the word “draft” in the news. The important thing is that the public, helped along by the message-managers in the media, will think this is a George W. Bush / Republican thing.
Behold the beauty of the rhetoric:
So then what about the third, most controversial option — is it time to reinstitute the draft? That option has a certain appeal as the Army fell short of its active-duty recruiting goal for June by about 15%. It is the second consecutive month the service’s enlistment effort has slipped as public discontent grows over the war in Iraq.
Bringing back mandatory service has been the refrain of many who want to put the brakes on the Iraq war; if every young man is suddenly a potential grunt on his way to Baghdad, the thinking goes, the war would end rather quickly. It’s also an argument made by those who are uneasy that the burden of this war is being unfairly shouldered by the 1.4-million-strong U.S. military and no one else.
The war unfairly shouldered by an all-volunteer military. An option put up by the journalist for a problem that he has inflated (military recruiting not meeting its goals).
I don’t think a draft is going to happen; however, what’s important to certain elements within our nation is that grandmothers, mothers, and the young fear it enough to elect the “protectors” of youth. Even those same “protectors” are the ones studying and trying to reinstitute the very bogeyman they slay.