Bush swears that there will be no draft on his watch, period, and I continue to be skeptical. If I buy all I’m being told, and then do some basic common sensing around some things the administration is pointedly not saying – out loud, anyway – I can’t help concluding that we probably don’t have the manpower we need to manage the debacle we’re already mired down in, let alone any other adventures that Dubya might be lusting after:

• so far our approach to Iran and its nukular programs sound about identical to where we were with Iraq at the same stage,
• Syria has been on the business end of some strong language lately,
• I keep waiting for the lid to blow off in Saudi Arabia,
• and that congenitally twisted little dictatorial fuck in North Korea is waving every red flag he can find at the Great American Toro, which so far is ignoring him (ironic, that, since NK actually is a legit threat to the global peace).

So my inner math student can’t help raising his little hand and asking the teacher if he’s sure that 1+1=5,000,000, because that’s not what it says in the book. (Of course, the book does come with a sticker explaining that “basic addition” is in fact only a theory, and that there are other theories that ought to be given equal consideration.)

Anyhow, a recent article in Rolling Stone, which hardly ever does anything useful anymore, provides a helpful perspective on the realities surrounding the question of a new draft. Several issues are addressed, starting with the administration’s open lie about its planning:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in an Op-Ed blaming “conspiracy mongers” for “attempting to scare and mislead young Americans,” insisted that “the idea of reinstating the draft has never been debated, endorsed, discussed, theorized, pondered or even whispered by anyone in the Bush administration.”

That assertion is demonstrably false. According to an internal Selective Service memo made public under the Freedom of Information Act, the agency’s acting director met with two of Rumsfeld’s undersecretaries in February 2003 precisely to debate, discuss and ponder a return to the draft.

Additionally, RS examines the ethical issues of the all-volunteer force and any prospective draft, noting the efforts to Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) to instill a little good old-fashioned American equality into the process:

One of the few politicians willing to openly advocate a return to the draft is Rep. Charles Rangel…who argues that the current system places an immoral burden on America’s underprivileged. “It shouldn’t be just the poor and the working poor who find their way into harm’s way,” he says. In the days leading up to the Iraq war, Rangel introduced a bill to reinstate the draft — with absolutely no deferments. “If the kids and grandkids of the president and the Cabinet and the Pentagon were vulnerable to going to Iraq, we never would have gone – no question in my mind,” he says. “The closer this thing comes home to Americans, the quicker we’ll be out of Iraq.”

But instead of exploring how to share the burden more fairly, the military is cooking up new ways to take advantage of the economically disadvantaged. Rangel says military recruiters have confided in him that they’re targeting inner cities and rural areas with high unemployment. In December, the National Guard nearly doubled its enlistment bonus to $10,000, and the Army is trying to attract urban youth with a marketing campaign called “Taking It to the Streets,” which features a pimped-out yellow Hummer and a basketball exhibition replete with free throwback jerseys. President Bush has also signed an executive order allowing legal immigrants to apply for citizenship immediately – rather than wait five years – if they volunteer for active duty.

On the whole, an enlightening little read…

[Thanks to Pit Boston Desk Chief Debby Levinson for pointing me to this article.]