Because there are major differences between the world in 2004 and the world in 1968:

1) There is no way excluding women from the draft would pass Constitutional muster at this point in time

2) Politically, the concept of Student deferments could not fly anymore.  

As a result, the Religious Right would reject the concept of sending women to fight, and the afluent and upper middle class would suddenly see their children ACTUALLY being forced to serve because they couldn't get deferments.  They couldn't just send the poor kids to fight and die.  So, no draft, at least not while a Republican is in the White House.

"Fighting the war on the cheap" is not why those proposing it are doing so; at least when Charles Rangel proposed it, he did so out of some perverse effort to undermine Administration foreign policy.

That having been said, I oppose any reinstitution of the draft.  It does not appear to be necessary, as military recruiting goals are being met.  However, it's a discussion worth having.

I don't think they'll re-institute the draft, & nor should they......That's one way to kill the morale of the troops real quick, mix in the men & women who signed up for the service, with a bunch of conscripts taken from college campuses & high school graduations, etc....And I don't think there's a need for one in terms of the numbers anyway.....

Also, I think it would be political suicide for a reinstatement of the draft (this isn't a democrat-republican thing either, it would be political suicide for any party)

The military is reporting that they are exceeding their enlistment and re-enlistment numbers. This is a political trial balloon floated by Charles Rangel as another avenue for opposition to the war...

I have always thought the idea of mandatory service of, say, 2 years, for everyone, at age 19 or upon graduation from HS was not a totally bad idea.
Tie the service with guaranteed college tuition, and other benefits, it becomes more attractive, and everyone gets in, no deferments.


Just my opinion...
B

... the cost of the war is blooming (much of it is off balance sheet) and troops are really stretched.  An all volunteer force depends on an economic incentive to be successful.  If the situation in Iraq gets really bad, the cost of getting people to go there will go up. Additioinally, the cost of maintaining a professional army will increase substantially:  Currently the pay for a recruit is steadly edging toward the pay for a Sergant.

William Broyles Jr.'s editorial in Today's New York Times makes the strongest pro-draft case I have yet seen: