By Trevor Thompson
Apr 19, 2004

The winds of war are blowing. Until recently, the winds have been blowing far away in Iraq, but don't be surprised if someday soon, whether you're sitting in your house in Missoula or your apartment in Manhattan, you start to feel a draft. 

Literally. 

Last Tuesday night I felt it. I was watching the president's prime time speech to the nation. He was talking about the "historic opportunity" we had in Iraq and how he would see this mission through, no matter the cost. "If additional forces are needed, I will send them," the president promised.

If those words were meant to be reassuring, the president missed his mark. They sent a shiver down my spine. I'd been reading how U.S. forces in Iraq are stretched thinner than cellophane over last night's leftovers. I'd also been reading about the diminishing numbers of fresh troops available to relieve them. What happens when there are no more troops to see this "historic opportunity" to its finish?

"What if they draft us?" I asked my roommate.

He wasn't worried. He pointed out that we had both turned 26 in the last two months. Not that it mattered to him. Even if there was a draft, he was going to Harvard Business School next fall and was sure he could defer. 

"At least I think I could," he said. "But it doesn't matter. You're being paranoid. There's no way they would do another draft. Vietnam was such a disaster they would never do it again."

Hardly were the words out of his mouth when one of the reporters asked the president what he thought of Sen. Kennedy's recent comparison between the Iraq war and Vietnam. After a few moments of silent teeth-gnashing, the president responded that he found the analogy "false" and "harmful." Which begs the question, harmful to whom? The president was referring to the morale of the troops in Iraq, but the unspoken implication was that it was harmful to him and his administration. 

More troops? Vietnam comparisons? A feeling of dread began to creep over me.

The dread increased the following morning when I was surfing for news on the Internet and I came across the Washington Times headline, "Nader tells youths to brace for draft." According to the article, two bills calling for a draft are being introduced into legislation. Even though the Bush administration claims it has no plans to reinstate the draft, Nader thinks young Americans should be aware that a draft is a very real possibility. Nader warns, "Young Americans need to know that a train is coming, and it could run over their generation in the same way that the Vietnam War devastated the lives of those who came of age in the ë60s."

"Who listens to Ralph Nader?" my roommate asked when I told him about the article.

Me. I do. I listen to anybody who is trying to warn me of impending doom. But to make sure I wasn't being paranoid, I decided to do some research to see if this draft theory held water. What I found was not comforting.

The first thing I did was look up one of the draft bills being introduced into legislation, S 89. The opening line reads: "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."

A very bleak opening, indeed. I guess there was some solace knowing there will be girls going to Iraq with me, but not much. Thankfully, my roommate was correct: The cutoff age is 26. It's a good thing, too, because this new draft wouldn't view higher education as a reason for deferment, whether you're going to Harvard or Poughkeepsie Community College

Was there really danger of this bill passing? So far Congress hasn't shown any interest, but the very fact that it's been introduced makes me nervous.

Further research revealed an article from last month in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporting the Selective Service (the federal agency responsible for running the draft) started planning last fall for a possible draft of linguists and computer experts. A representative at the Selective Service cautioned people against overreacting. "Nobody foresees a need for a large conventional draft such as we had in Vietnam," he said, "but they thought that if we have any kind of a draft, it will probably be a special skills draft."

Great. No one "foresees" the need for a draft. The Bush administration has proven it doesn't foresee a lot of things, namely the crashing of two planes into the World Trade Center . . . or Iraqis hanging the burned bodies of U.S. Marines off of bridges. And I love that it will probably be a "special skills" draft. What do they mean by "special skills"? I have a lot of special skills, both inside and outside the bedroom. Is it just computer and linguistic skills they are looking for? My resume says I took two years of Spanish in college and that I'm a whiz with PowerPoint. If I were 25 years old, would I be drafted?

Another good question is whether there is actually a need for more soldiers in Iraq. Army Gen. John Abizaid, head of Central Command, thinks so. Early last week, he called the security forces in Iraq a "great disappointment" and asked for two more brigades. That equates to 7,000ñ10,000 troops. In addition, he is requesting the extension of the tour of duty for 20,000 troops who are preparing to leave Iraq and return home. And that's just for starters. Some U.S. officials think the general is being conservative and that many more will be needed. Said one, "If Abizaid says he needs two brigades, one can be certain that that's the very minimum he needs, given the reluctance by him and other commanders to acknowledge that they need any more troops at all."

But we have plenty of troops, right? In January 2004, the Department of Defense reported 1.4 million active duty personnel. What's 20,000 out of 1.4 million? Here's the problem: These soldiers are not all sitting around a camp in Texas reading naughty magazines and playing poker while waiting for their chance to see a camel. Around 30 percent of the 1.4 million are stationed around the world, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Germany, Japan, Italy, and even sunny Puerto Rico. 

It's true we have Reserves and National Guard, but it turns out that these reserve forces make up about 50 percent of the current military. On Friday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld responded to General Abizaid's request for more forces in Iraq and announced 20,000 troops would have their tours of duty extended. Six thousand of those soldiers are Reserves. Once the reserve pool is exhausted, the U.S. military is going to need a bunch of new recruits. Given the reported low morale of troops in Iraq, the rising death toll, the high suicide rate, the defections, and the extended tour of duties, chances are not good that Americans will rush to be the first in line at the local Army recruitment office.

This is the situation we're facing. We have a president who says he'll send as many troops as needed in order to achieve a secure and free Iraq (definition of "a secure and free Iraq" is pending). We have politicians warning us about the very real possibility of a draft. We have senators introducing bills into legislation calling for the reinstatement of a draft by next spring. We have the Selective Service making plans for a "special skills" draft. We have a U.S. general in Iraq who thinks our current Iraqi force is a disappointment and is calling for reinforcements. We have a Pentagon who is sending them. We have a substantial number of our reserve forces already in active duty. And we have ourselves embroiled in a conflict that has been compared to Vietnam, and even more recently, by Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, to the cold war. In fact, in Wolfowitz's opinion, it might last longer than the cold war and test U.S. resolve even more than World War II.

So is my roommate right? Am I being paranoid? I don't think so. 

Is a draft a real possibility? You can bet your bottom dollar.

Or your firstborn son.