There have been more than one thread of discussion in regards to the draft. I hope this one does not cross the line of overlapping discussion, but there are some subtle differences, namely-the reasons for it as cited by the senator from my state.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...ft_040420172423


and....



Questions for debate:

1.)In calling for a draft, is Senator Hagel and other senators too panicky about the deaths of Americans, while imortant, pale in comparison to the death totals on D-Day and other bloody battles.?

2.)Is having a draft to get across to the civilian population the "deep challenges" that we face a good enough reason to have it?

3.)If things are going okay in Iraq and this is just a minor "flare-up" by some junior cleric-and we are turning on all the lights, running the schools, and turniing it into a "Paris of the Middle East," then why is a senior foreign relations Republican calling for a draft?

4.)Do you support Senator Hagel's position?

5.)Did we not have enough men on the ground to solve this situation?

[quote=nebraska29,Apr 20 2004, 05:59 PM] There have been more than one thread of discussion in regards to the draft. I hope this one does not cross the line of overlapping discussion, but there are some subtle differences, namely-the reasons for it as cited by the senator from my state.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...ft_040420172423
[QUOTE]   

1.)In calling for a draft, is Senator Hagel and other senators too panicky about the deaths of Americans, while imortant, pale in comparison to the death totals on D-Day and other bloody battles? [/quote]
I think they are a little too panicky. They need to look at comparisons of history. At Normandy alone, 9000 US troops died. So far there is about 700 dead in Iraq (some of which are non-hostile deaths). Also, in Vietnam, we never got another government organized in South Vietnam, meanwhile, in Iraq, we have the Governing Council and a new constitution. Sure there may be some skrmishes but they are minor and we are handling Sadr and his sadistic goons

[quote]3.)If things are going okay in Iraq and this is just a minor "flare-up" by some junior cleric-and we are turning on all the lights, running the schools, and turniing it into a "Paris of the Middle East," then why is a senior foreign relations Republican calling for a draft?[/quote]
Because he thinks that there is a need for social class equality in our units in Iraq

[quote]4.)Do you support Senator Hagel's position?[/quote]
I agree with the part that there should be more upper class Americans in Iraq. This statement, of course, would be the one that kills the idea because all the politicians will be getting dough under the table by their wealthy "donors" to laugh Hagel out off the Hill

[quote]5.)Did we not have enough men on the ground to solve this situation?[/quote]
We have plenty of troops to solve this problem. It's not like we are fighting insurgents like we are fighting Sadr's army all over the country. It's in isolated areas.

What a load of bull!









When you're a first generation immigrant or your family is poor the military is encouraged to increase your chances of improving your situation. When your president is criticized for decisions that strain our volunteer force, downplay the poor's contributions in case you have the opportunity to squeeze more blood and bones out of the working class in the near future.

If the June 30 deadline is still in effect pressing for a draft could only mean we're going to have a strong presence on the ground until next year at least with boot camp, A-school, orientation at the squadron level, and deployment. I think the draft idea has more to do with filling finished military contracts for the next country on the WOT's crosshairs than relieving the present force due to leave in 71 days.

1) I don't see it as him being frantic at all. What better way to make those rebellious striplings appreciate the U.S. of A. then to send them overseas with a gun? There are plenty of things in this world to live for, and plenty to die for, but a country is not one of them.

2) A draft is a good indicator of how fast I'll speed up my attempt to immigrate to Holland. There's no good reason to have a draft. Period.

3) Good question. Makes me wonder if things aren't going so peachy as the media would have us believe. I have this mental image of Cheney and Bush in the White House acting much like Pinky and the Brain from Animaniacs.
"Gee Che, what are we going to do tonight?"
"The same thing we always do, Bushy...Try to take over the world."

4) Hell no; I won't go!

5) I would think so.

I see no reason for a draft when the majority of those in the service know what they are getting into and choose to do so. If there was a draft, you would get many people there who want no part of it, or would be rather reluctant. Those already in the service know what they signed for, and if they were dumb enough to believe what the recruiter had to say (and I've been sweet-talked by all branches) then by all means it's no skin off my back.

I would like to add something more about what Lesly brings up with the majority of enlisted personnel being of a working class background. My father was definitely one of those people. He came from a poor background, and the Navy was basically his way up in life. It's disheartening to think that some may think that it comes down to military service. But what happens in the military is rather open-book (just don't ask, don't tell) and it's not too difficult to unravel. People make the choice and know going in, so thus I have no real sympathy for what happens to them in the line of duty (kinda like a construction worker falling off a house. He knows the risks going in). But to imagine that in the minds of many this is seen as the only way out of a situation...it's disconcerting.

As someone directly affected if the draft were reinstituted, I have a particular interest in this matter. First of all, I find it extremely unlikey that it would ever happen. That being said, if it were to happen, I would definitely go. I think serving the country that has given me the opportunities I have is necessary. I did not volunteer for the military; I chose to pursue education instead. If the security of my country warranted my service, however, I would indeed serve.

The number of poor people in the military is probably high because of the easy opportunity to get money. You don't need to worry about job experience because the military trains you.

And then there are those who think "If i join up, i can pay for college". That's not all true. The army doesn't give money for college to everyone

Im interested in this theory. Most first time servicemen are from 18 to mid 20s right? What opportunities have they had the pleasure of enjoying yet?

I am will ing to bet that if they reinstate the draft there will be a sudden public cry to get us out of Iraq... and the armchair quarterbacks wont be so easily calling for wars in Iran and Syria either.

I think last night I heard we have about 500,000 troops- 135,000 are in Iraq. I guess that counts as about 1/4 of the available, we probably dont have enough considering they are all doing extended tours. But, if we are supposed to be pulling out whats all the fuss about?

I also wonder if this isnt an upswing to phase II of the Bush plan to "change the world" (as he repeated about 5 times in his recent Q&A.)

I don't think Senator Hagel's draft initiative is based on a concern that soldiers are dying in Iraq. It appears to be focused more on perceptions that our military is spread thinner than we'd like it to be and that a draft would stack the recruiting process (voluntary and non-voluntary) such that quotas would always be filled.


No. Reinstituting the draft on that basis would be an inappropriate and extreme measure.


I don't think he is calling for a draft because of the current pitched battles. I think the real reasons have more to do with his views on our long term policies and concerns that we may have to keep troop concentration levels up far longer than originally anticipated.


No. I think a compulsory draft should be a last-ditch resort, because of all the problems it creates. I'm not sure we are "there" yet. And personally, I know I'd be very reluctant to serve alongside people who didn't volunteer and did not want to be in the military.

The opportunity to live, and in most cases, enjoy their youth. Few are malnourished, beaten, and employed by sweatshops; many others in the world are. From a logical standpoint, those in their "18 to mid 20s" are the most efficient soldiers there are (strength, stamina, mental responsiveness, etc.). If the security of the country is threatened, they are the ones that should go. In my mind, the government's primary purpose is to protect its citizenry; without soldiers, it cannot.

I realize this has little significance now, because the situation at hand does not merit reinstitution of the draft. I am simply discussing my belief should a hypothetical situation arise where the security of America requires more troops than are currently available.

Questions for debate:

1.)In calling for a draft, is Senator Hagel and other senators too panicky about the deaths of Americans, while important, pale in comparison to the death totals on D-Day and other bloody battles.?

Whether their reasoning is due to panic can be debated, but IMO Senator Hagel and Rangel are wrong in their assessment. Refer to quote from Rumsfeld of which I totally agree with.

2.)Is having a draft to get across to the civilian population the "deep challenges" that we face a good enough reason to have it?

No...and I again agree with Secretary Rumfeld's reasons:

Rumsfeld declares: No draft
By Pamela Hess
UPI Pentagon Correspondent
Published 1/7/2003 4:43 PM

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030107-041941-7673r





3.)If things are going okay in Iraq and this is just a minor "flare-up" by some junior cleric-and we are turning on all the lights, running the schools, and turning it into a "Paris of the Middle East," then why is a senior foreign relations Republican calling for a draft?

Reminder that so far, there are only a few in Congress who believe reinstating the draft is the answer which means the Hagel/Rangels' bill will go nowhere.

4.)Do you support Senator Hagel's position?

No as for the reasons stated above.

5.)Did we not have enough men on the ground to solve this situation?

This is common rhetoric from both sides of the aisle since the major part of the Iraq war ended...that we should put more troops on the ground. For almost a year, I can't begin to count the number of times I have heard various military commanders state categorically they don't want additional American troops. If such a need arises, they want more troops from allied countries. Why is that? Well, there would be less risk of increasing numbers of our troops being killed or wounded for one reason. And for the second reason, additional American troops would heighten the hostility factor of some Iraqis. So, although Bush's critics are blaming him for not signing off on sending additional American troops...he is not secondguessing the advice and reasoning of those in charge (Rumsfeld) and fighting this war. As many times as the military commanders have stated they don't want additional American troops, Bush has stated that whatever the military needs and asks for they will have no matter what.

And, to clear up Senator Kerry's statement based on his knowledge of just what percentage of troops represents the coalition forces:

Look again at Hagel's question:



Pay some price. He's not just arguing about the draft, but the complete lack of "sacrifice" on the part of this nation in the so-called "War on Terror"... except for maybe a little added inconvenience at the airport. The added cost? No problem: Pass it along to the next generation! Soldiers are stretched thin? No problem: just call up the National Guard (weren't they intended to guard US?) and keep them there for a long long time!

Hagel is calling for a shared sacrifice so that the Administration won't be so quick to commit troops to "nation building" or whatever. Right now, the entire nation is not sharing in the sacrifice. Having a draft during Vietnam affected EVERYONE in some way (even if you had to work to avoid being drafted).

War demands sacrifice on the part of the entire country. Not just a few volunteers.

But we don't need a draft because of the current bog-down in Iraq. That's not the right solution to that particular problem.



It's a good reason, but not the right solution at present. Perhaps the first step instead should be for Congress to insist on a balanced budget that taxes us at the same rate as expenditures instead of continually hiding the problem for other tax payers to eventually handle.



Because we really DON'T have enough men on the ground. We have enough soldiers there to win a war, but not enough to secure the peace, which would require about 20 soldiers for every 1000 civilians. That translates into a standing force of 500,000 men in Iraq, which is nothing like what we have or what we would even have with the minimally trained Iraqi army/police that we've set up.

Rumsfeld is wrong. We DO need more troops on the ground if we want to secure the peace. It won't just happen because we desire it. We have to actually take the proper steps to make it happen.



As someone past the age where it would matter, I still wouldn't support his position. I'd rather see us leave the whole country to the Iraqis to sort out than to call on more of our young folks to sacrifice for a misguided adventure on the part of a one-term president.



As I mentioned above, no. Nation building takes more resources than we've committed to the problem. Our troops are stretched thin elsewhere, making us pretty impotent in other hotspots of the world. Kerry wants to increase our standing army by 40,000 troops and to get the UN or NATO to commit soldiers to Iraq (as opposed to non-combatants who are the first to turn-tail when the firing starts); that's a good start, but if enough Shia and Sunnis decide they want us gone, we can't win with the small force we have on the ground there.

Actually, if you included all of the troops deployed to support combat operations, the number is 250,000. If you count all of our forces deployed overseas, the number is around 350,000. Good link to bookmark.

According to Mrs. Pigpen's link, we have 5000 soldiers in Bosnia. Pull them out and let NATO take over and rotate the ones in Iraq that were scheduled to leave with the ones from Bosnia. It's that easy

There are actually a LOT of terrorist networks in Bosnia. 5,000 is a very small number anyway. We could leave S Korea, though... That would save us a lot of money and manpower (give them a five year notice, or something). We definitely don't have enough men on the ground in Iraq. I would be against the draft for that purpose. It would be better to withdraw and let them sort it out (to quote amf) than send conscripted soldiers to the area. It isn't nearly that bad yet.

So there are a lot of terrorist networks in Bosnia. Let NATO deal with them. And why send the troops in South Korea to Iraq? Our troops in Bosnia have seen more action and would be better prepared for Iraq then soldiers who have sat on the DMZ where they have not seen fighting.

Actually GA, the troops in Bosnia are mostly Guard and Reserves who have had an intensive train up for peacekeeping operations. I'm not sure what action you're referring to in the Balkans.
Don't sell short the soldiers of the 2nd ID. They have, as a division, 25 good years of training to repel a massive invasion from North Korea. They have the latest equipment and are *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off for having been in Korea, unaccompanied for 12-18 month tours. I wholeheartedly agree with Mrs. P's statement. (if for no other reason, I don't want another tour in the ROK)

2.)Is having a draft to get across to the civilian population the "deep challenges" that we face a good enough reason to have it?
Iraq is not a good enough reason to either institute the draft, or make a statement to the population.

5.)Did we not have enough men on the ground to solve this situation?
I believe for the most part we do.

So a good deal less than 20 thousand troops from the ENTIRE coalition- with Spain removing thier troops, Poland making noises in that direction, and several others re-assessing thier political reasons and options for being in the war- but hey, we will just say, 20,000 total coalition in the war- half of that great britain- and us over 135 thousand- doesn't make much of a commitment from the coalition forces- one country (us) has over six times the soldiers in country than the rest of the coalition combined, and 12 times more than the next biggest contributor, Great Britain.

At some point- we are definately going to be stretched to thin to complete all our v various missions.

And he was correct on another point- many of the coalition forces have less than 500 troops and are not in combat positions- say, Honduras, which is considering withdrawing anyway.

* Edited to fix quotes

GoAmerica, you enlisted in the Army or the Army Reserve, right? Did you opt for the GI Bill when you signed up?

Absolutely. Besides placing undue hardships on citizens, the military is not currently facing a situation in which conscription is required to fill manpower needs. The military was much larger during the 80s, and that was without conscription. If the military needed to expand why is a draft automatically necessarily? It may help fill manpower needs but at great cost to morale and discipline. Generally a volunteer is going to be worth ten times as much as a conscript. That's why most militaries the world over are moving away from conscript armies. The draft should only be used as a last resort in emergencies.



The only reason to have a draft is to meet military necessity. Everything else is not justification for a draft as far as I'm concerned, particularly if its going to be used as some sort of cure for America's social ills, or political apathy.



I don't believe we have enough troops on the ground. It has become apparent that Rumsfeld was wrong. We don't have enough troops in Iraq to maintain security, particularly since so far the Iraqi security forces have proved themselves to be all but worthless. A buddy of mine in Fallujah half jokingly wrote me that they were shooting the wrong Iraqis.

A note about military demographics...

I know its a bit off-topic, but it has been stated in this thread that the poor shoulder more of the burden of military service than the rest of the country. That's simply not true. US military personnel are overwhelmingly from middle-class backgrounds regardless of race. Both the poor and the rich are under-represented.




Military Demographics

I should hope that a country that proclaims its own democracy would not have to make it's own citizens aware of the difficulties of war started in their name. My hopes are unfortunately, never reflected in my government.

If the people of this country truly believe that a war is just, they will accept a draft.

If you think the people will not accept a draft for the Iraqi war, draw you're own conclusions.

Sure, have a draft. Im too old so it sounds great. You can make those punks (anyone under 26) pick up highway litter and wash cars. Call it an "army" but really well just use them like slaves. Good idea.

We have enough troops on the ground. There are over 130,000 troops. Our territory of control in Iraq is almost all of the middle to northern half of Iraq. Just as long as the other COTW countries stay in IRaq, we will be fine

True

False

Received this today:


This is targeted at strengthening OIF/OEF, and the 8,000 is just the tip of the iceberg. From 18 - 31 May, Army Human Resources Command will involuntarily transfer all those who have not completed their 8 year IRR obligation to reserve Troop Program Units to bring them up to 100% strength - this affects 23,000 people. Then, from 1 - 14 June, HRC will involuntarily transfer all those who have not completed their IRR obligation to those units - affecting another 60,000 people.

This, despite the fact that the Army Chief of Staff was able to convince Congress to approve a temporary increase in Army end-strength by 30,000 troops over the next few years. And comes on top of extensions of tours in Iraq for several units - and other units being turned right around and sent back shortly after redeploying home.

What next?

Is the Army stretched too thin?


The draft question will return, but not likely before the November election. Clearly, this will not be a popular issue.

Hagel's "deep challenges" notwithstanding, the plain fact is that if the U.S. has no other way to get enough soldiers to fight these wars and occupy countries, the draft will be reconsidered. The privileged, as usual, will find a way out of it, leaving the burden to the middle class and poor once again.

The link I provided has a U.S. deployment map of the numbers of troops stationed all over the world. As many of us already know, many troops are being sent from other areas (like Korea) to Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's a good link except for the fact that it only shows the number of troops deployed overseas. Some 387,400 of them. I heard on TV today that the total size of our armed forces is around 1.4 MILLION. Subtracting the total overseas that still leaves over 1 MILLION armed services personel here at home. Are they available for deployment? Perhaps our military folks here can tell us about that.

Of course, you are talking "total force" numbers here- they can be very tricky- for instance, now, I am a bit fuzzy due to the time, but I believe in the army alone there are 3 distinct arms of the total force regular army- one of them being TRADOC for instance (darn, can't remember the other two- next drill I will ask) is strictly training for soldiers= many of these folks combat veterans, by neccesity. So, drill instructors, jump masters, door gunners etc all home to train troops, and not just recruits- it adds up to a HUGE number of that force, and as I recall, it was the (of course) smallest arm, but I remember the number kind of staggering me.

To call up all reserves and national guard would of course be political suicide, and stop recruiting for these dead in it's tracks. So there goes another part of your total force.

Looking at the hats I wll have to wear just this summer, it is stretched very very thin, even at the guard level.

I think like 25% percent of the reserves or guard has been called up. I was activated for several months late 2002 early 2003 and was set to deploy to the middle east but Baghdad fell and the "greeted as liberators" mantra was so profound that many units were simply sent home. Stories were going around of planes en route turning back. I was demobilized after these months. The unit I was mobed with was a cross sectioned unit with multiple reserve units thrown together. In the months I was with them as we prepared to ship out I made many friends and many of those friends despite the multiple month activation were recativated like half a year later and are now in serving Operation Enduring Freedom. I was neary reactivated again for the second time a few months ago. My whole reserve center went to our home unit and we were immunized and the whole gambit. Some people who got active duty orders cut that day got them for 18 months. Yes 18 month deployments for reservists who had already been activated once before. Our unit was on the alert list but were not included in this troop rotation. Since my unit wasnt activated select units started plucking from our reserve unit in order to fill out activated units. One of friends was one of those unlucky few who was plucked. He is now in over there. I could be called up at any moment...again and I do not have a special MOS. My job is not a pertinent rebuilding job and it certainly isnt a combat MOS either. That doesnt matter soem of my military friends are patrolling and guarding even though that isnt their job in the army. These are water purification, shower, Sewing, Laundry, Cook etc etc MOSQ soldiers.

What does this tell me? That certain people are on the protected list and that the pentagon is so fearful of a draft that they are puttin soldiers in unfamiliar positions in which they are ill trained for. The reason is because a draft although its probably needed is political suicide. Its all a numbers game. They say the troops are being rotated and they are. Combat troops are being rotated with cooks, mechanics, waste disposal and water purification people.

We have alot of troops but not enough of them are combat troops. It may be a popular saying that every soldier is first and foremost an 11 bravo (infantry) but alot of MOS's are not trained or ready for front line combat and hostile patrolling.

To add to that- the medical side is alarmingly low- as far as I can tell as a lower guy- without giving away something bad in my post= lord, I realize I don't know the rules to that so well- I hope I am not the first ADer arrested for sedition!

I do know that, due to my extensive hospital experiance, my services are sought out to the Nth degree- and in late July I will begin family counselling for those returning from Afghanistan- and am tasked to train several others that have no medical background or psych background experiance whatsoever!

But, props go out to them for doing this anyway, so at least we have a "triage" of families needing helpt to cope with a troubled soldier, and this was not done in the past- so not complaining either, this is definately and improvement.

As long as you dont give out specifics like numbers, dates, mode of transportation and that OPSEC cant touch you. General comments w/o the details is the key. I never pinpointed a date, a locale that wasnt obvious, activation orders that arent common knowledge...actually I am going to tweak that post . maybe a little too much.

Not sure, though, that the situation calls for deploying more Navy or Air Force personnel. The problem is army/police troops on the ground, not whether their skies or beachfront property is secure.

I don't know that much about re-enlistment numbers, but I do have two friends who are in the reserves and guard respectively. The first one retired with 23 years under his belt, the second one plans on getting out ASAP. I've had family members who left the armed services shortly after Gulf War I. For some reason, even when a war is convincing and we win, people tend to want to do other things. I'm sure that with this conflict, that will remain the same. I agree that right now the government is trying to ring out every body it can from the guard and reserves, I just don't see how much longer they can keep doing that and get the job done.


How about this prediction?-We will have a draft anywhere between January and July of 2005. Any comments?