I thought John Kerry captured the problem with the Bush administration’s stop-loss orders perfectly this week.
Democrat John Kerry on Thursday accused President Bush of creating a “backdoor draft” by requiring thousands of soldiers to remain in the military if their tours of duty extend to Iraq or Afghanistan.
A day after the Army delivered the news to active-duty soldiers and reservists, the presidential candidate raised the specter of the nation inching closer to a draft as he criticized the Bush administration for stretching the military too thin, complicating the mission to create a stable Iraq.
Kerry said the Pentagon’s expansion of the “stop-loss” program — a device that prevents military personnel from leaving when their time is up — may have increased U.S. forces by 30,000 troops, “but this has happened on the backs of the men and women who’ve already fulfilled their obligation to the armed forces and to our country — and it runs counter to the traditions of an all-volunteer Army.”
If the central problem with the military draft is involuntary military service, then Kerry is absolutely right. The administration is forcing troops to continue their service, whether they want to or not, even when their tours of duty are done. It’s not a literal draft because these service men and women volunteered for duty initially; that’s why Kerry called it a “back-door” draft.
This description doesn’t even seem particularly controversial. As Andrew Exum, a former Army captain, wrote in the New York Times yesterday:
Many Americans, feeling that we did not have enough troops in Iraq, were pleased when the Defense Department announced last month that 20,000 more soldiers were being sent to put down the insurgency and help rebuild the country. Unfortunately, few realized that many of these soldiers would serve long after their contractual obligations to the active-duty military are complete. In essence, they will no longer be voluntarily serving their country.
These soldiers are falling victim to the military’s “stop-loss” policy — and as a former officer who led some of them in battle, I find their treatment shameful.
With this in mind, I found the Bush campaign’s response dumber than usual.
In a conference call for political reporters organized by the Bush campaign, BC04 offered a retired veteran to condemn Kerry’s remarks.
Retired Navy Adm. Thomas Morris said Kerry’s suggestion is “an insult to the wonderful volunteer service we have in the military and the wonderful people we have serving.”
The Bush campaign must be getting pretty desperate if this is the best they can come up with. If Kerry is criticizing Bush’s decision to extend tours of duty, how, exactly, is that “insulting” to the troops?
One gets the impression this will be the trump card for every national security/foreign policy discussion of the campaign. In 2002, it was “if we don’t do x, the terrorists will have won.” In 2004, every time Kerry has something negative to say about Bush’s handling of international affairs, it’s “an insult to the troops.”
It’s going to be a long five months.