Posted on 10/18/2004 9:50:30 PM PDT by conservative in nyc
OP-ED COLUMNIST
hose who are worrying about a revived draft are in the same position as those who worried about a return to budget deficits four years ago, when President Bush began pushing through his program of tax cuts. Back then he insisted that he wouldn't drive the budget into deficit - but those who looked at the facts strongly suspected otherwise. Now he insists that he won't revive the draft. But the facts suggest that he will.
There were two reasons some of us never believed Mr. Bush's budget promises. First, his claims that his tax cuts were affordable rested on patently unrealistic budget projections. Second, his broader policy goals, including the partial privatization of Social Security - which is clearly on his agenda for a second term - would involve large costs that were not included even in those unrealistic projections. This led to the justified suspicion that his election-year promises notwithstanding, Mr. Bush would preside over a return to budget deficits.
It's exactly the same when it comes to the draft. Mr. Bush's claim that we don't need any expansion in our military is patently unrealistic; it ignores the severe stress our Army is already under. And the experience in Iraq shows that pursuing his broader foreign policy doctrine - the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war - would require much larger military forces than we now have.
This leads to the justified suspicion that after the election, Mr. Bush will seek a large expansion in our military, quite possibly through a return of the draft.
Mr. Bush's assurances that this won't happen are based on a denial of reality. Last week, the Republican National Committee sent an angry, threatening letter to Rock the Vote, an organization that has been using the draft issue to mobilize young voters. "This urban myth regarding a draft has been thoroughly debunked," the letter declared, and quoted Mr. Bush: "We don't need the draft. Look, the all-volunteer Army is working."
In fact, the all-volunteer Army is under severe stress. A study commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld arrived at the same conclusion as every independent study: the U.S. has "inadequate total numbers" of troops to sustain operations at the current pace. In Iraq, the lack of sufficient soldiers to protect supply convoys, let alone pacify the country, is the root cause of incidents like the case of the reservists who refused to go on what they described as a "suicide mission."
Commanders in Iraq have asked for more troops (ignore the administration's denials) - but there are no more troops to send. The manpower shortage is so severe that training units like the famous Black Horse Regiment, which specializes in teaching other units the ways of battle, are being sent into combat. As the military expert Phillip Carter says, "This is like eating your seed corn."
Anyway, do we even have an all-volunteer Army at this point? Thousands of reservists and National Guard members are no longer serving voluntarily: they have been kept in the military past their agreed terms of enlistment by "stop loss" orders.
The administration's strategy of denial in the face of these realities was illustrated by a revealing moment during the second presidential debate. After Senator John Kerry described the stop-loss policy as a "backdoor draft," Charles Gibson, the moderator, tried to get a follow-up response from President Bush: "And with reservists being held on duty --"
At that point Mr. Bush cut Mr. Gibson off and changed the subject from the plight of the reservists to the honor of our Polish allies, ending what he obviously viewed as a dangerous line of questioning.
And during the third debate, Mr. Bush tried to minimize the issue, saying that the reservists being sent to Iraq "didn't view their service as a backdoor draft. They viewed their service as an opportunity to serve their country." In that case, why are they being forced, rather than asked, to continue that service?
The reality is that the Iraq war, which was intended to demonstrate the feasibility of the Bush doctrine, has pushed the U.S. military beyond its limits. Yet there is no sign that Mr. Bush has been chastened. By all accounts, in a second term the architects of that doctrine, like Paul Wolfowitz, would be promoted, not replaced. The only way this makes sense is if Mr. Bush is prepared to seek a much larger Army - and that means reviving the draft.
Paul Krugman's hands are still shaking from the beating that Bill 'R gave him a few weeks ago on the Paul Russert interview program.
Word on the street is that he brought a fresh pair of panties to the studio since he knew that the big macho Bill O'R would not only intimidate him, but force him to soil his girlish underwear.
A few points.
Let's remind those we speak with that there is a small danger of a draft...but only if John Kerry gets elected. He's called for 2 years of "national service" for all American HS graduates, he wants to send more troops to Iraq, and he opposes moving troops out of Europe. And perhaps most importantly, well every single Republican voted against bringing back the draft, not only did some Democrats call for it, but they even voted for it recently in Congress....
On deficits, uh, do you think the mammoth size of government has anything to do with it? Maybe, just maybe the answer is lessening the rate of growth of government, or God forbid, cutting it??? Neither will happen under Kerry. You can criticize Bush for spending too much. But looking at the alternative, John "Big Government" Kerry, there is no question who would spend more...
I see Krugman is still an idiot. PresBush`s tax cuts didn't send the budget into deficit all on their own. Many events drove the budget into deficit. We had the WallST/dotcom bubble burst, followed immediately by the onset of the Clinton-Gore recession, then came the 9-11 attacks and the subsequent WoT. Besides, the federal budeget current deficit when compared to GDP isn't anywhere near the largest in US history.
I know of a whole bunch of soldiers up here in Alaska who would like to go kick some terrorist butt! Krugman is one sad sack of crap.
Isn't Krugman an "economist" by education???? (Or am I mistaken?)
Listening to liberal Democrats whine about budget deficits is like listening to a whore whine about being called a tramp.
Bush is a Big Spender. The difference betweenn this and the draft is that there is never any lack of congressional enthusiasm for slopping around in the pig trough. Reviving conscription, on the other hand, is about as popular as gout.
And that's why it won't happen. The fact that the Pentagon doesn't want it is icing on the cake.
Krugman may have went to school for economics. But he is a certified liberal idiot.
This poor bastard is using a talking point that's already been refuted even by the MSM. Krug need to check his fax machine more often. It's like the RATs using Sanchez' memo from last year to complain about troop equipment.
He should stick to Larry King. I understand a Depends box was put on display as part of an "art" display of
"celebrity" garbage.
Larry probably had some spares at the studio.
Yeah, right. Like Larry Seltzer would ask anyone of Krugman's ilk a hard question, let alone a real one.
-The lies of Paul Krugman-( BLAIR, BRAGG, DOWD ... KRUGMAN? ) --
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.