as some yahoo bleats the term "draft!" with much concern and a scholarly note of resignation.
Firt, LTG Douglas Lute, who really must have pissed someone off to get stuck with this whole "war czar" billet, made the godawful media error of saying that a draft could and should be considered as a viable option when making military plans.
Full response during the NPR interview:
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.
Methinks the general may have found a way out of the world's most awkward job.
It is worth noting that if we examine the general's bio, we find a good amount of staff work. Specifically, planning work. Quick note - hearing an experienced planning officer say something needs to be kept in mind is not cause to stop the presses. These guys do what the term implies - they plan. Somewhere out there in a drawer in the Pentagon or at NorthComm, there are plans for invading Nova Scotia, I'm sure. I'm equally sure there are different options to that plan, based off of whether we're running a conscript or volunteer military when the fateful days comes.
Military planners are the sorts of people who have, in the backs of their minds, a plan to nuke their mothers' 75th birhday parties parties. Not because they want to, you see, but because wouldn't you feel like an ass if you had to nuke her birthday party and hadn't bothered to plan for it?
Of course a draft is on the table. We have the system in place, and it's an option. As long as it doesn't involve unicorns or the sword of Godric Gryffindor, it's probably "on the table" for planners.
Good lord, people.
|