I posted this somewhere else but I figure this board is better suited to this question.
Think about the logic of a draft for a minute.

The Kerry campaign says that Bush wants to reintroduce the draft.

But the Kerry campaign, based on some reports from field commanders, also criticizes Bush for not putting enough troops in Iraq.

So, why would Bush want to reinstitute the draft if he's not using enough of the forces we already have?

There is a total deficit of logic in Kerry's arguments. And that's not the only one.

The problem with that is, supposedly, we did have enough troops - well, at least a considerably greater number than actually took part. That is, at least, what many of the generals and war planners complained about.

Certainly, there are rotations - we can't have all our forces fighting all-year-round, but the Army and Guard reserves alone total 1.2 million, and only about 175,000-200,000 troops were sent to Iraq. That's only about 1/6 of our Army/Guard alone. If you figure there's about 25,000 troops in Afghanistan, you can say about 225,000 as a commitment. But that's still about 1/6 even then.

In any case, we aren't even close to needing a draft.

I believe the point Kerry was trying to make was simply that if Bush didn't have what he needed to invade, he shouldn't have invaded at all. I understand where this seems like something of a hypocrisy, but seeing as how he never really accused Bush of not pushing America's youth harder into the war, I don't think it can be called that.