Democrats have said no. Republicans have said no. But despite opposition across the board from politicians, rumors of reinstituting the draft are making headlines throughout the nation. The draft was the subject of a bill that the House of Representatives voted almost unanimously against on Tuesday.
Currently in the United States it is not feasible to reinstitute such a policy, and advocating it might constitute political suicide for politicians of any level, especially the candidates for president. The bill, initiated by Democrats, is nothing more than a political scare tactic; it was a tool to point out inequalities of volunteer service. Fear mongering of this magnitude is unacceptable and unethical at this critical juncture in the country's history. The Republican Party took the correct action and attempted to put voters' fears to rest.
It is ludicrous to consider reinstating the draft for the continuing war on terrorism. The public would likely reject such a policy for a war that does not have widespread support at home or abroad. Although the presidential candidates do not agree on much, both have implied or explicitly stated they have no intentions of bringing back the draft for the war on terror. Any reversal of this position is unacceptable and could realistically result in a Vietnam Era revolt.
Since the end of the Vietnam War -and the end of the draft -the military has become more mechanized, more dependent on technology. No longer are the armed services the institution that our fathers might remember. According to Ted Triebel, a visiting lecturer at Duke University who also was a national security policy officer in the Pentagon, modern warfare does not require as many foot soldiers today. It requires technicians and special trained operators. The huge amount of conscripts that would be generated from the draft would likely be an inconvenience to the military.
Winning the war on terror cannot be achieved by simply throwing vast amounts of soldiers into the struggle. This war, more than any in history, is a war of policy, psychology and co-existence. Terrorism is an enemy unlike traditional foes. It has no face, no country and no rules of engagement. It cannot be stomped out solely by a huge amount of manpower.
Spin Central
Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., attacked each other, their running mates' weak suits and spread disinformation about each other. Sounds like American presidential politics 2004 at its finest -where the same re-heated spin is served up on a silver platter to the electorate.
The debate was generally regarded as a draw by the major political pundits, unlike Sen. John Kerry's, D-Mass., general consensus victory last Thursday night. Edwards and Cheney exchanged punches about Iraq, the economy, terrorism and other topics. The telling parts of the debate were in inaccuracies. Cheney's comment that he and Edwards never met before the debate was made to point out that Edwards had been derelict in his duties as a senator, but Cheney had in fact acknowledged Edwards at a 2001 event. Edwards' and the Kerry campaign's line that the Bush administration supported outsourcing jobs is also little more than rhetoric if one considers that, in a free trading universe, lost jobs to outsourcing can be made up in other domestic fields, and that Bush or Cheney have never said they support outsourcing, according to The Associated Press.
Both debates lacked believable plans. For instance, Bush/Cheney's exit plan for Iraq, as Americans are now painfully realizing, is non-existent, and Kerry/Edwards' are relying on miracle international support for a conflict that most major world powers initially opposed.
Underneath the deafening roars of flip-flop
flip-flop and four more wars lies the same old, same old from both camps, flinging the same mud from the past three months and hoping Americans can't see through it. In an election of such importance, we should demand more.
17
Archives
The Post Editorial Board
20041007277midsize.jpg
