LTG Lute apparently has so little to do that he could contribute this bit of thought to our war effort:
Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday.
"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."
Well that's nice. We have not had a shortfall in recruiting or retention, but Lute thinks that we should expel those soldiers and Marines in uniform right now in order to draft new people. Because if we don't have a draft, those troops we'd need to fire to make room for draftees might quit from repeat deployments.
That is essentially what the general is saying. Who else do we draft when we are meeting our manpower needs right now with volunteers even as we expand the Army and Marines?
And if the general is only saying we should draft if recruiting and retention falters, if we have a shortfall of 10%, we should set up a draft to induct the 8,000 new troops not volunteering? Out of a population of 300 million, we draft 8,000 per year? That's quite an expensive effort to set up a system that excludes the vast majority of eligible 18-year-old males each year.
And to add to the foolishness, the good general offered his opinion on NPR. The bastion of anti-war thought. Even the article notes that a draft is viewed by draft proponents as a means of stoking anti-war opinion. The general admits that our volunteer military is working just fine now. If he was simply talking about a theoretical future problem should we not be able to recruit, shouldn't he have understood the impact of saying this on NPR?
So hey, kudos LTG Lute, on your efforts to support the war effort. Way to go!
UPDATE: Jeff at Caerdroia, having listented to the interview, emails that LTG Lute did not state what I attribute to him. About the particular quote, Jeff wrote: "I heard the interview. He didn't say what you think he said. He was saying that a draft would be a political policy change, not a military change, and that it would be a large one ... At least go read the transcript. Out of context, the quote looks different than what he was talking about."
Going to the transcript:
You know, given the stress on the military and the concern about these extended deployments for an all-volunteer military, can you foresee, in the future, a return to the draft?
You know, that's a national policy decision point that we have not yet reached, Michele, because the —
But does it make sense militarily?
I think it makes sense to certainly consider it, and I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table, but ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another. Today, the current means of the all-volunteer force is serving us exceptionally well. It would be a major policy shift — not actually a military, but a political policy shift to move to some other course.
Do you agree with that assessment that there is a real pressure point in the spring — that that's when the Pentagon will face some tough decisions about either extended deployments or reducing the time spent at home?
Yes, I do agree that come the spring, some variables will have to change — either the degree to which the American ground forces, the Marines and the Army in particular, are deployed around the world to include Iraq, or the length of time they're deployed in one tour, or the length of time they enjoy at home. Those are, essentially, the three variables.It's interesting, because we often hear the president back away from discussions of any kind of timetable, because he says that it would show our cards to our enemies. But it seems that they would know this also, that the current force strength has its limits.
Well, remember that I said that there are three variables. So there's not a hard and fast stop to any level of commitment of American forces.
Michelle Norris interrupted Lute's answer when he correctly punted the question as a political question above his pay grade. Note what I said at the end of my post: "If he was simply talking about a theoretical future problem should we not be able to recruit, shouldn't he have understood the impact of saying this on NPR? "
LTG Lute clearly was talking about a theoretical future problem. Even I would concede that if we couldn't maintain our forces and had significant shortfalls, another method to staff our military would have to be considered. That is all LTG Lute said.
But I hope that LTG Lute learned a lesson from Michelle Norris' focus on getting him to say the magic words and the media's ability to lift those words and ignore the context. A good faith effort on his part to admit a theoretical justfication for a draft was used to undermine our war effort. Never assume good faith by our media.
And shame on me for assuming that Lute' quote accurately reflected what the media reported. I apologize to LTG Lute for my error.
