Similar to another thread about 'non issues' distracting from the campaign, I thought I would serve this up as it does present an interesting question in terms of patriotism / national service as well. The topic du jour at the DNC seems to be that, if re-elected, George Bush is going to bring back the draft. This despite the fact that Bush and Rumsfeld have both stated that there is no plan to do so.

So far, this message has been carried by:
Howard Dean


from the above link, Max Cleland:


John Edwards

John Kerry


Additionally, and a coincidence I'm sure, there are reports that emails are going to university students, something like this: (my emphasis added)


In addition to a previous version of this email being debunked by snopes.com, the selective service has responded as well:


Of course, H. R. 163 is a Democratic-sponsored bill in the House that is opposed by Bush and Rumsfeld. You can see a synopsis here.
H. R. 163

Questions for debate:

Should we resurrect the draft? Why / Why not - many civilized countries have mandatory government or public service, why not the USA in a time of war?

Is it disingenuous for a party to sponsor a bill to reinstate the draft, then incinuate or even outright accuse the Bush administration of having some secret plan to bring back the draft? (conspiracy theorists - did Rangel introduce the bill in advance so that Dems could later accuse Bush of supporting it?)

Should we resurrect the draft? Why / Why not - many civilized countries have mandatory government or public service, why not the USA in a time of war?

If you're thinking nations like Israel it is strategically necessary for young people to pull mandatory service for domestic security. Countries like Sweden and Norway, in addition to having a small population, offer greater incentives like socialized healthcare. It's surprising to see a conservative (or part-time conservative) asking "why not" on mandatory service when they can be counted on to balk at social programs.

Is it disingenuous for a party to sponsor a bill to reinstate the draft, then insinuate or even outright accuse the Bush administration of having some secret plan to bring back the draft? (conspiracy theorists - did Rangel introduce the bill in advance so that Dems could later accuse Bush of supporting it?)

Disingenuous has to be the overused buzzword of the year. I'll just say they're lying if the DNC is behind it. Betsy's blog doesn't show a From: line. A quick search points to "liberals." Do you know the source of that email carlitoswhey?

Notwithstanding, I do find it odd the Defense Department deleted a draft board notice a year ago after the foreign media picked it up but before domestic media outlets could (or ever would).

You might want to actually check the link to the bill that carlitoswhey provided, Lesly. It comes directly off of Thomas which is about as un-biased as it can get.




Not a whole lot of conservatives there.....

Heh, I know the bill is sponsored by Democrats. I've posted about it before.

I was referring to suggesting mandatory government or public service. It is too "social" for the likes of a country reluctant to expand government programs and welfare is unconstitutional. That's what I hear anyway. So I found the question coming from carlitos at odds. The level of partisanship these days...

There are noteworthy benefits to this idea but it won't fly here.

The House bill in question is sponsored by Charles Rangel, (D) and co-sponsored by the following:

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] Democrat
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] Democrat
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] Democrat
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] Democrat
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] Democrat
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] Democrat
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] Democrat
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] Democrat
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] Democrat
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] Democrat
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] Democrat
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] Democrat
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] Democrat
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] Democrat

That is all of the co-sponsors of the House bill. Of course, the DNC has no idea what's happening...

Congressional Party Affiliation

"Draft" Bill Summary & Status

For the love of Pete. Seriously.

One more time. I know the draft bill was authored by Democrats. Got that? My first answer has to do with mandatory public/military service regardless of war, like Norway, not a draft.

I would like to know who authored that email to college students.

Should we resurrect the draft? Why / Why not - many civilized countries have mandatory government or public service, why not the USA in a time of war?

A draft for the US military, in its current configuration, would be counter-productive. The US military is much, much more high tech than it was in the Vietnam era. The training involved is much more involved than how to shoot an M16. It would take a long time before the boots would hit the ground. Snopes estimates it as 2 years after the draft were instituted (including the lag between beginning the draft and the first draftees are required to report).

Besides, the US military is so good precisely because it is a volunteer force. Every soldier wants to be in (if not exactly where they are deployed). They know the possibilities of being deployed around the world before signing up. This keeps morale high, unlike a drafted military.

Is it disingenuous for a party to sponsor a bill to reinstate the draft, then insinuate or even outright accuse the Bush administration of having some secret plan to bring back the draft? (conspiracy theorists - did Rangel introduce the bill in advance so that Dems could later accuse Bush of supporting it?)

This whole thing is a dirty trick by the Democrats to scare young Americans. It is underhanded and they know it is patently untrue.

Charlie Rangily, one of the President's harshest critics, sponsored the bill. No Republican has shown support for a draft. The military commanders have not (to anyone's knowledge) said that draftees were needed.

In addition to the quotes given by carlitoswhey, Jim McDermott said to a group of students at the Democrat convention:


McDermott, of course, is a co-sponsor of the bill calling for a draft. He is being completely dishonest about who is behind the idea of a draft. For all the fuss about Republicans being "scare mongers" this draft issue is pretty low.

Instead of this being some kook fringe elements of Democrats, Kerry himself insinuated that it might be possible, although he must know the truth behind these bills. Edwards has said that there will be no draft if Kerry is President, making the tacit suggestion that there would be one under Bush.

John Kerry is a member of the Democrat Leadership Council (DLC) New Democrats Online. He promotes a mandatory service requirement for young Americans (ala AmeriCorps). National Service


Not necessarily a bad thing, but we must keep in mind that Kerry wants more service from the young people of America.

I would like to know why this type of report didn't end up in the Media as a Watchdog thread.

I cannot believe how disingenuous the Democrats are being with this issue. A bill totaly written and sponsored by Democrats, and they are saying re-electing Bush would mean the draft would return?

Another attempting to win at all costs tactic? They must be taking lessons from CBS.

I'll admit these are seemingly baseless accusations coming out of everyone quoted. John Edwards probably has the most appropiate quote. However, the entire point of this thread, I believe, is to juxtapose this against the Republican scare tactics. Is this any worse? I think it's a lot better, and a lot more of a traditional negative campaigning ploy. Similar to the RNC and everyone connected to it lying (or if you prefer OVERSIMPLIFYING) about Kerry's military spending voting record (also, might I add debunked by Snopes).

Should we resurrect the draft? Why / Why not - many civilized countries have mandatory government or public service, why not the USA in a time of war?

If the either party wants to get ousted for decades, than I recommend they push for the draft. America simply will not stand for it, there are already record protests against this war. a draft would be a cultural explosion. I don't fully understand the bill presented or why it was presented by a bunch of strange democrats, but I'm not suprised since most Demos seem to love war as much as Repubs if "there's a good enough reason."

Is it disingenuous for a party to sponsor a bill to reinstate the draft, then incinuate or even outright accuse the Bush administration of having some secret plan to bring back the draft? (conspiracy theorists - did Rangel introduce the bill in advance so that Dems could later accuse Bush of supporting it?)

Yes, but as I said the RNC and cohorts do the same exact thing with Kerry every time I take a visit to their site. It's buzzword lies that are easy for people to get behind, take in, and repeat. Both parties are guilty of doing this, luckily I'm not affiliated with either, and would never give money to either, because it goes to snuff like this. Think about that the next time you consider donating

This is a favorite talking point recently, to scare people with this notion that somehow a draft could return. No matter how many times the Pentagon says it's not happening, no matter how many times the president says it's not happening it still gets brought up by the left.
My feeling is that there is absolutely no political will nor is there any support among the electorate for a reinstatement of the draft. Short of an invasion of the United States by an outside aggressor people just wouldn't go for it.
So far, the branches of military service are meeting their enlistment and retention goals. I do predict a shortage in Guard and Reserves over the next three years, if tours in Iraq remain at one year, while active duty units average six months.

I've been interested in various mandatory public service proposals that I've seen, those that include options such as the military or CCC-type projects. But I remain undecided.

Rangels draft proposal is supposedly a protest bill, with no hopes of ever passing. (by virtue of a draft of women for combat units included) But the Democrats have just as many dimwits who won't know that as the Republicans do, so in many ways it just seems stupid on his part for Kerry to spout his line while a prominent congressman pushes another.

You're right - I'm completely at odds with myself, but I will name a few reasons that I think mandatory national service (not a military draft, but it could be optional) is a good idea:
- shaping young heads full of mush.
- building a REAL sense of country, somewhere between blind patriotism or blind anti-everything-ism
- building a sense of community. This one is more tenuous, but, especially for those in the suburbs / exurbs, there isn't much community involvement. Local / regional projects that require young people to work together towards a common goal could help - building community organizations, helping on gov't projects, seeing how things work would make people more interested in fixing or changing them.
- "diversity" - a noble goal for my conservative friends - not a quota, not empty words, but for those that never go to college, live in Idaho or whatever, unless they join the military, some white folks will never meet a black person. Those that serve in the military gain this experience, and it's a life lesson many young people in segregated communities need.
- fill the gap created by the current trend away from vocational training in high school by teaching real work experience to 18-19 year olds. Show up on time and do your stuff or you face real consequences - extra service, pay cuts, etc.
- All in all, recognize that we are currently extending adolescence into age 30, and it's going to hurt our productivity as a nation at some point. X-Box ain't going to pay the bills, and hey parents, have you noticed that your kids are FAT - put 'em to work.


I have no idea who wrote the email, but it's been around since before Kerry was the nominee. My guess is some well-meaning but misguided student / activist on some campus received the email and started forwarding. That's how I get the emails about the poison bananas from Costa Rica or Bill Gates donating to some kid's kidney fund. My only objection is the coordinated messaging by so many key Dems that Bush wants to bring the draft back, when they know it's not true.

Apologies for consecutive posting. Another draft email...


Here is the link rock the vote

Also apparently CBS has not learned anything either.

On last night’s CBS Evening News they ran a story about the military draft being reinstated.

This has been debunked here and at FactCheck.org.

The only draft around here is the hot air being spawned by Charles Rangle and 14 other democrats in congress.

Interesting topic...

It looks like the Democrats are taking lessons from the Republicans! The Rep's have a message of the day to coordinate every conservative speaker on the planet to one message. When they want something to become an issue, it BECOMES an issue. Sadly, that tactic has pretty much sterilized Kerry's campaign. It seem's that the Draft idea, sponsored by democrats and blamed on Republicans is merely a Republican style smear tactic. It makes me wish so badly for sane, viable third party.

Should we resurrect the draft? Why / Why not - many civilized countries have mandatory government or public service, why not the USA in a time of war?

Mandatory public service could actually be pretty beneficial as detailed by carlitoswhey. As long as public service doesn't mean military necessarily. Draft to war situations are very different. I could never, ever fight a war for the rich American's money, and most importnantly, I have lot's of friends who aren't as politically inclined, and I don't want them suckered into dying for rich America's money. The reality of a draft today would be just as shocking as Vietnam.

Is it disingenuous for a party to sponsor a bill to reinstate the draft, then incinuate or even outright accuse the Bush administration of having some secret plan to bring back the draft? (conspiracy theorists - did Rangel introduce the bill in advance so that Dems could later accuse Bush of supporting it?)

Yes, defamation is a bad practice regardless of partisanship.

Should we resurrect the draft? Why / Why not - many civilized countries have mandatory government or public service, why not the USA in a time of war?


No. This government can't be trusted to decide when force is and isn't necessary. Also, forcing all young Americans to go through military training is simply saying they'll be forced to go through conditioning. That's what it is. And conditioning is antithetical to freedom.



Is it disingenuous for a party to sponsor a bill to reinstate the draft, then incinuate or even outright accuse the Bush administration of having some secret plan to bring back the draft? (conspiracy theorists - did Rangel introduce the bill in advance so that Dems could later accuse Bush of supporting it?)


I think the Dems sold us out (they are, after all, almost indistinguishable from the repubs. I think this bill is real, lurking, and will be enacted no matter which candidate wins office.

Which government could we trust to decide when force is and is not necessary?

Every job is conditioning. All those training videos are nothing more then condition its young Americans into how to work at there place of employment. Education is conditioning. The teach how to remain seated, raise you hand, law and order. Schools teach you how to write, which characters to use, which words to use, how to speak, how to think. Everywhere one turns in this society you are condition to conform to something. It is only the Anarchist who does not conform. Yet even in non conforming they condition themselves to conform to not conforming to society.



And enacting the bill does not go against American History. Every major war had a draft. I guess if the war is major, there needs to be a major draft.

"Which government could we trust to decide when force is and is not necessary?" -yehoshua

Certainly not this one friend... And I don't think that you could possibly argue otherwise after the WMD fiasco.

"It is only the Anarchist who does not conform. Yet even in non conforming they condition themselves to conform to not conforming to society."-yehoshua

I think your mixing up real Anarchists with angsty teenagers complaining abot the societal mold that is pre-cast for them. Anarchism has nothing to do with conforming or not conforming. Anarchism operates on the idea that power corrupts absolutely, and so no one should have power. It favors local industrial organization over state control. Read a book about it before you discount Anarchistic thought so quickly.

"And enacting the bill does not go against American History. Every major war had a draft. I guess if the war is major, there needs to be a major draft."-yehoshua

Just like vietnam, lots of good the draft did that one. It really helped a lot when we pumped vietnam full of the bodies of our poor, and Im sure doing it again would really get us out of this quagmire in Iraq... oh wait, sorry, that was sarcasm. Rigid thinking is dangerous thinking. War doesn't even have to happen ever, and assuming that every big war needs a big draft is to ignore the people whom would lose their lives becuase of the draft you so readily support. This isn't bleeding heart liberal stuff, this is just human compassion.

I understood that aspect from ralou post, but my question is still not answered. By saying 'you can't' does not answer 'you can.'



That is true. But the underline principal still applies in an Anarchist form of government. Who runs the local factor? Who works the local factor? What if one person works better then another person? Why in human nature is it natural to have leaders and followers? I guess overall in Anarchist government someone will always have power trying to claim he does not have power while holding power: which is just conforming to the Anarchist society. The point being is everything is conform and condition in us as humans from day one.



YEP, the good old argument of war never solved anything. No one has to go to war. War never did anyone any good except for ending fascism, communism, nazism, slavery, and terrorism.

If America did not in act its draft during World War II, the Jewish people would either be suppress or alienated. Nazism would reign down on Europe, but the 'poor' of America never would have been harmed.

If America did not in act its draft during the Civil War, the black people of America would still be slaves. The United States would be divide between slavery and non slavery states.

I never once ignored a single man or woman who lost their life defending this country against the tryanny of evil. Behind every great war is a great collection of this country's finest people that gave it all so that I could sit here and debate that their lives were not given in vane.

HUMAN COMPASSION isn't a sign you can hold as a shield to protect people of this world from evil. Evil is not stopped by people who want to protest that violence solves nothing and war is unnecessary, all we need to do is talk. While the UN sits around talking about punishments for anti-human rights society, evil continues its reign of pain, torture, and hatred against humanity. Human compassion can not wait for a debate when there are people out their dying under suppression.

Not quite. We are barely meeting recruiting goals - for the first time since 9/11 we're having shortfalls in enlistments. We've only met a portion of our annual recruiting target for this fiscal year. The official announcement for is that we met our goals - but that was with jiggling numbers and eating into what is really next FY's committed enlistees.

And as far as retention goes, keeping in mid-career NCOs and officers is also becoming a problem. This is a much more significant issue, as these are the guys we need to train, mentor and lead the cherry troops. The unit-based stop-loss prevents it from becoming a visible problem - permitting such as statement as "we are meeting retention goals" - but it is a serious issue. And that is what is behind the drive from the Army senior staff to cut the length of combat tours. Hell, a CBO report in Sep '03 stated that we would not be able to sustain the long tours beyond Mar '04. We've already gone 6 months beyond that.

The incident at Ft. Carson that was recently in the news is an aberration, and is not indicative of any military policy. However, it does reflect the desperation of certain unit commanders to maintain experienced troops in their units to meet the demands of ongoing missions.

So, while we are not running out of troops, we (the Army) are definitely engaged in-depth. In-depth meaning near-total commitment of Active, Reserve and Guard forces to an operational rotation schedule to meet needs in the two combat theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan.

For us in the active Army, at times it feels like we are running out of soldiers. The unit-based stop-loss actually affects far more soldiers than did the MOS-based stop-loss. I'm sure y'all have heard of the Individual Ready Reserve call-up, retirees are being called up, and many soldiers at or over 20 years in service - myself included - have had their retirements denied. Several units have had extended or back-to-back rotations. Others are getting smoked by redeploying to CONUS, going through the organizational restructure from the standard brigades into the new "units of action", and then exercising the new structure through training at JRTC and/or NTC prior to redeploying into theater. No rest for the weary.

But the AF has actually had its commitment trimmed a bit since the fall of Saddam - current operational needs are less than they were when they had to fly both Northern and Southern Watch. For the Army - and to a lesser extent the USMC - it is a very different story. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we are either undermanned, or manned at the appropriate level with either the wrong MOSs attempting to do the right thing with little to no training, or simply too many inexperienced troops.

The Big Army is trying to address the issue. Army end-strength has been increased by 30,000. In addition to the big organizational restructuring, some service support are being changed to civilian fill and the position numbers are being transferred to other MOSs. And, along the same lines, some career fields are being restructured within the Army, to decrease the slots for less relevant MOSs and increase the number in critical fields, all of which will do a lot to increase the capability of the force.

Basic and advanced individual training for all MOSs in the Army are also in the process of undergoing significant change, that reflects current operational needs (..the Big Army suddenly realized that many kids are being deployed into a combat zone within weeks after graduating from AIT without any specific train-up at their gaining units). These are all excellent, long-overdue changes - but it will take a couple of years before they are really felt in-theater.

Its not a rapid solution - but it's slowly helping meet operational needs. A draft would not be any faster - and the results of that would significantly degrade the quality of the force.

Yehoshua I completely respect your opinion on war and peace, but I disagree.



I am confused by this. Are you asking me/us which government we could potentially trust? If so, I have no idea. Not the British... The French maybe... Im not sure.



Im not sure, but I agree that it is human nature to have leaders and followers, and I agree that it is human nature to dominate (thus horde power) and so for those reasons I am not an Anarchist. I just don't trust humanity that much.



I know what your saying. It's fundamental "pat America on the back stuff" which is fine, and comforting. However, our wars of the last few centuries have not eliminated fascism, communism, nazism, slavery or terrorism. The wars we have fought have only eliminated regimes that used fascism, communism, nazism, slavery, or terrorism as well as further advanced American geo-political strategy. Certainly stopping Hitler was a good thing, certainly ending slavery was a good thing, and certainly the elimination of all of those above things should be a goal. However:

Fascism and Nazism are merely mindsets, anyone can be a nazi or a fascist by choice. Our wars against Fascism and Nazism may have discouraged these tendencies through brute force, but like terrorism, mentalities are impossible to destroy.

Slavery still occurs today in much of the world. Ending slavery in the US doesn't make us good people, we still held slaves in the first place. Ending slavery was one in a long process of steps that White Westerners must take in repaying the African nations for that atrocious act.

Finally Terrorism, like Fascism and Nazism, is something which cannot ever be eliminated because it is merely the result of an imbalanced military conflict. In fact, aiming tanks and bombs at potential terrorists only increases the likelyhood that they will employ terror tactics.

So don't pat America on the back so quickly. We have killed a whole lot of people who didn't need to die. Some of our wars were based on righteous ideals... but the definition of righteousness is anyone and nobody's business.

Original it was stated that...

and then...

and now...


All I am trying to say is that war is a necessary evil in this world when combating, as you put it, ideals that lean towards hurting humanity rather then helping humanity.

Yes of course these things, fascisms, slavery, and terrorism, still exist in today's world but at the same levels? Do we have a Hitler killing 6 million people of one religion? Do we have the millions of people in slavery through out the world as in the 1800s? Do we have...wait yes, we have terrorism on a scale larger then any other point in record history. This is why we have troops fighting terrorism. This is why we have a no negotiation policy with terrorist.

One topic of the thread (Should we resurrect the draft? Why / Why not - many civilized countries have mandatory government or public service, why not the USA in a time of war?) is important because during times of battle against great evil ideals (slavery, fascisms) we see the draft as being a beneficial aspect in defeating these ideals.

Whether or not we are at a level where we need to implement a draft is the true question here. Not whether or not a draft should be allowed. But is freedom in such dangers as in the Civil War and World War II that we need to draft.

My answer: No. Terrorism is different then the conventional warfare. Terrorism requires police, airport security, border security and intelligents to prevent. Before we all go half cocked looking for a draft or fearing a draft, we must first understand if a draft is the answer to solving our security problems.

There is a big difference between conditioning someone to sit still and not kick their neighbor and teaching them that, at any time they are ordered, they are to shoot whoever they are told to shoot, regardless of what they may personally feel about it.

Yes, we are conditioned down this road to some extent. Textbooks that glorify war and conquest. A taxpayer sponsored online game the Army has that lets you team up and shoot other teams. TV, movies. But some of us can turn away from those things, and we are free to do so. We can look at real war photos, see more realistic movies, refuse to play US military sponsored recruiting tools, and teach our kids to read critically and question what they read and hear.

Two years of mandatory service would rip away that choice, or rather, would create a terrible cluster of choices for dissenters:

Go even though you think it's wrong.

Refuse to go and flee, and miss out on an education and a good job

Get in the streets and fight with others to stop the draft/mandatory service.

The conditioning is performed the same, the outcome is what is different. Yet is a a proven fact that you can condition anyone to do anything. But i guess more so what is disturbing about your claims is that our military is a group of mindless zombies that kill on command.



Questioning what you read does not in anyway uncondition you. Let say you are reviewing history and you decide that during World War II, the number 6 million Jews were killed somes high. Where there 6 million Jews in Europe to Kill. You check the census for 1932 in Europe and you conclude that there was only 4 million Jews in Europe, 2 million survived Nazi death camps, leaving the simple fact that in a mater of ten years the Jewish people doubled the number of children in Europe. Does this now make you uncondition?

Far from it. The fact that you had to uses other books and draw conclusions does not mean you have over come the condition, it only means you have chosen to be condition by another means.

With a volunteer army, every man and woman who enters the service enters under the knowledge that they will be trained to kill. Who in their right mind has never heard of boot camp? Much like the question of World War II history, those in the military choose to condition themselves.



Again there are choices. And all the items happened during every draft ever implemented in the United States. Does that make the draft wrong?

They are a group, and mindlessness isn't similar to being taught to not think individually, which is something they definitly reinforce in the military (no I in team). Their not zombies... which is kindof an absurd accusation, but they do kill on command. It might be disrespectful of the military, but that assertioin is still pretty true, friend.



There is a plethora of reasons to join the military. Every person who I know that has joined (four people very personally a few more inpersonally) recently went to pay for school and all sought non-combat positions. The military is loaded with gimmicks to attract people and I MEAN LOADED. If you need proof go to www.americasarmy.com, which is the site of a online first-person-shooter military game that is aimed at teen and preteen boys, and has convenient links to your local recruiter. My point is that you can't generalize anything about Americas armed service, every soldier is an individual, and many disagree with what is going on. A job is a job is a job though, and if it is the only way to pay for school...


"Does that make the draft wrong?"
-Yes, I believe that was the point... It is entirely unfair becuase it essentially mandates political thought, agree with the war and fight or go to jail.

I was taught that in basketball practice, does that mean I was taught not to be an individual thinker?



It never matters the reason you join the military, "with a volunteer army, every man and woman who enters the service enters under the knowledge that they will be trained to kill." Even if you take a 'non-combat position' what are you doing? Preparing the machinery to kill, checking weaponry, transporting to sites. Just because an individual choose a 'non-combat position' does not mean they are not trained to kill.

As you pointed, "there is no I in team", one kills they all kill.



I agree: "you can't generalize...Americans armed service, every soldier is an individual..." But then we can not claim that the military condition is effective in creating non individual thinkers.

A job's a job? Seriously? A CEO is equal to the mail clerk? A solider is equal to a school teacher? These jobs are the same? People sit there and say, "I am either going to be a school teacher or a marine. Haven't decide. Both have great benefits and no real pay."



You have options with a draft. Fight or go to jail or fight the people who will put you in jail or flee the country who's political thought you disagree with. You have a choice. You have free will. Make the decision. Don't blame the draft or the politician for forcing you to make your decision.

So again I ask, does that make the draft wrong?

Yes it makes it wrong. It's like a man with a gun coming into your house and ordering you to go with him to commit a murder.

Is it okay because you then have a choice?

You can go with him.

You can try to run (even though you might not make it out of your house and then where will you go?)

Or you can fight him. Even though he is armed and you are not.

I guess that is the difference. I don't think that is wrong. As long as you have choices you are truly free.

And as to the topic: Should we resurrect the draft?. It should resurrected, as i said before, if there is a serious threat to the freedom of Americans. In times of war we must give up civil liberties or fall prey to the evil that engages us on the battlefront.

Give up freedom to be free? That's self-contradictory. And I certainly wouldn't trust this government to tell me when we're in so much danger that it's time to reinstate the draft. Especially given the overwhelming number of high Bush officials (and Bush himself) who dodged the draft.

"There is a big difference between conditioning someone to sit still and not kick their neighbor and teaching them that, at any time they are ordered, they are to shoot whoever they are told to shoot, regardless of what they feel about it"

I don't even know where to begin with this comment. I think I'll just jump in.

First of all, while living in this country you never have to worry about being ripped out of your bed by the military at gun point and forced to go shoot someone. We live in a civilized country. We also live in what is considered to be a FREE country. Now, before you go ranting about freedom and draft implementation being contradictory, please understand that while we are a free nation we still have expectations of those who reap the benefits of that freedom. One of those expectations being to serve when needed, and one of those benefits being having a civil and well trained military that protects you. The civilians of this country, our government, and those already serving aren't being selfish by calling on a group of random individuals to serve. As well, refusing to serve(pre-admittance) does not put you at the barrel of a rifle. As Yehoshua has pointed out, though the choices you may be given aren't to your liking, you indeed do have choices. Freedom without rules and standards is considered anarchy; and nations in anarchy are not nations of freedom and civility.
Now, I can tell you through my own experience that you are not "conditioned" in the military. You are trained in the art of self defense and the defense of your fellow soldier. Self defense training should in no way be confused with being trained to "kill someone". Self defense training is teaching one different ways to stay alive.
Finally, the question that really brought us here to post: "Will George W. reinstate the draft?"
We can only trust what he and his administration are telling the American people. After all, there have been no indications up to present that point us in that direction. We have had such an influx of individuals joining the military since September 11. 2001. That day has reminded the citizens of this country of their patriotic duty. Our military now, during a war, is much better manned than before George W. stepped into office. With all that said, I'll state my opinion on the subject once more: Bush reinstating the draft is simply an ill thought rumor.

Much less contradictory than you seem to think. The primary purpose of the government is to protect its citizens. We wouldn't enjoy all of this wonderful freedom you speak of without that protection. So, it isn't unthinkable that a society which expects protection from its government be obligated to provide it. Fortunately, we have enough volunteers at the moment that the obligation is not compulsory.

That being said, I don't think these are the circumstances to enact the draft. There is no urgent national crisis (HUGE KNOCK ON WOOD). There are relatively few countries which still have the draft, as far as I know. Most of Europe dropped the requirement after the cold war ended. Training a conscripted force with the skills we need will take as long as training a volunteer force, and volunteers are obviously preferrable.

To both of you:

Once again, I would not trust this government to tell me when my freedom is being threatened. Iraq certainly was not a threat to my freedom, and if it was, it was because this government supported and probably even had a hand in installing Hussein and helping him oppress his people for more than thirty years.

Then there's the training and supplies Osama got from us.

Then there's the Vietnam War. We lost. So how come I'm not speaking Vietnamese and getting my new work assignment tomorrow morning?

Not only that, but US forces have been used to take away the freedom of Americans on many occassions. They have been called out to end worker strikes (at gunpoint) throughout our nation's history and let's not forget Kent State.

This government does not represent all Americans so much as it represents those Americans who fund its candidates (both Democratic and Republican). And I'm not going to war for corporate profit.




I think this Soldier's words sum it up:

“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

Major General Smedley Butler USMC

From: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/major_ge..._butler_usm.htm

Thank you Yehoshua! You have the guts and conviction that I have seen many on your side not demonstrate in regards to the draft.

Listen I understand that people will disagree on Bush but how anyone can support the path of Bush and not advocate a draft is completely beyond me. Our military is stretched beyond capability and 43% of the people in Iraq are Guard and Reservists.......many of which are not performing their MOS's but are taking up the positions that our regular army doesnt have the capacity to fill...meaning that cooks, water purification people, supply, laundry, shower people are patrolling, fighting and dying to maintain the illusion of troop strength.....I know this for a fact and will know it from first hand knowledge next year. The only way to succeed in Iraq is manpower and the only way to procure that man power is a draft if people do not have the stomach to accept that maybe they need to evaluate their attitude towards the war because that is the only logical solution to Iraq unless you think putting ill-trained reservists and guardsmen mixed in with people in the IRR who havent touched a weopon in 5 years is a better alternative. The very same IRR people called up only report 66% of the time.

I am a liberal and think this war was an absolute mistake but if we are forced to stay in Iraq then we need more troops and Bush needs to stop appeasing draft hating Americans and do what is necessary to fight the mistake he has got us into. That is what a leader would do. That is what a leader who was doing anything within his power would do. Can anyone tell me that Iraq doesnt need it? Huge portions of the country are out of our control, reports suggest the distinct possibility of a civil war, people die in greater numbers each month. Why are the politicians especially on the right not screaming for a draft? If Iraq is necessary for the US's safety why wont we send what is necessary to secure it? The American public cannot have it both ways. You cannot say winning in Iraq is integral and then resist the very thing...the only thing that can secure its success. You really think we can outgrind these people? I think the belief that our version of democracy is what they want has been eliminated. They do not and will never want us. Wise people on the right have realized this like Tucker Carlson.

Here is the reality. 1) Tuck tail and pull out. 2) Institute a draft.

Grinding it out with an ill-trained and undermanned army isnt going to solve anything.

The above (being repeated in various forms by Bush supporter after Bush supporter) has convinced me that there probably will be a draft.

Af first, most pro-Bush posters scoffed and said it was nonsense, could never happen again, was a Democrat scam to scare us into voting for Kerry, and etc.

I wish I was still hearing that. Because what I'm hearing now tells me that the spin is underway across the nation to get Americans to accept conscription. I just hope Americans will shake loose of it and refuse.

The subtitle of this thread 'more politicking on fear' is entirely apt. It amazes me the amount of websites one can find through Google that further this conspiracy theory. Even one site subtly titled 'bushdraft.com'. These sites offer as their primary source the Senate and House bills that call for a draft, yet surprisingly, they list Rangel and Hollings as the sponsors, but don't list party affiliation.
So for the short attention span sheep that may take in this tripe, they are still left with the impression that Bush is actively pursuing re-instating the draft.

Further fear mongering is taking the form of the military not meeting recruiting goals. I will only speak for the Army, but the opposite is true for the Active and Reserve components, but not the Guard. Link
And the statements about laundry & Bath specialists, supply clerks and cooks performing combat patrols.
In a word.......Nonsense.
And for the standard security and guard missions that they may be doing.....every soldier is a soldier first....issued a weapon...and trained to use it. It's not, nor has it ever been above any soldier to assist in the security of one's own unit or encampment.

I'm really starting to resent the generalization of Guard and Reserve troops being uniformly untrained, under equipped and substandard. I used to have the same mentality of sorts, from my active duty elitist perspective. But since the time my wife took command of a reserve combat support company and deployed to Iraq nine months ago, my views have changed significantly. There are always exceptions to the rule, but it's extremely unfair to broadly paint thousands and thousands of soldiers in an effort to promote ones own fear mongering, ABB agenda.

Our military is stretched thin, but this is the military that is designed to serve in two simultaneous theaters of war. Would we like more international assistance? Of course. I'd like to see an 'ISAF' like force from NATO come in and relieve us of about 80% of our current burden.
But I don't see a draft as either necessary or forthcoming.

But, then again.......maybe I'm just 'conditioned'...............

Should we resurrect the draft? Why / Why not - many civilized countries have mandatory government or public service, why not the USA in a time of war?

I believe that a draft should not be instituted (and won't be) for two main reasons.

First, (and I'd like to get DTOM's input on this aspect) many military folk will tell you that they would rather have people who want to be there than those who were forced to be there.

There are few things worse than having your life be put in the hands of someone who's only concern is how they can get out of the situation they're in, regardless of who's life they endanger. I know I wouldn't want to be next to that person.

Also, it costs lots of money to train soldiers. From Basic Combat Training, to AIT (Advanced Individual Training, a.k.a. A School or MOS school), to any additional school you wish to attend (SERES, Jump School, Air Assualt, Sniper, etc.) I know my course for my intel job costed tens of thousands of dollars...just for me. The military isn't intrested in wasting capital in a losing venture. (It's bad enough that they don't get a 100% return on they're investment anyhow) Imagine a scenario in basic training where drill sergeants and their chain of command have to deal with hundreds of people who dont want to be there from day one. And I'd be willing to bet there would be plenty of staunch anti-war people thrown in there. Your end result? Wasted money and time that could be spent on people who are willling to take on the responsibility of a service member.

To answer the second part of the first question, the situation of a place like Isreal, where military service is manditory for at least two years, is greatly different from the United States. The United States is not under threat from Canada or Mexico. We don't have to worry about Ottawa sending troops whose prime objective would be the complete and utter anhilation of the American people, our way of life, and our culture. Now that doesn't mean we don't share a similar threat with Isreal, but the details of the threat are like night and day.

Is it disingenuous for a party to sponsor a bill to reinstate the draft, then incinuate or even outright accuse the Bush administration of having some secret plan to bring back the draft?

If Dems sponsored it and then turn around and point the finger at Bush for supporting it, all the while acting like they did nothing, it would be rather two-faced of them.

I agree with DTOM that the generalization of Reserve and Guard troops being undertrained etc I find a little more than insulting- I despise the current regime as much as anyone- but we don't need to drag the troops through the mud to make a point.

I have no "need to know" about ACTUAL recruitment and unit strength details- and I am sure, real numbers are pretty much classified- I do know that there are very large, unfilled gaps in many units, all over the nation, that are not being filled.

I don't see the draft as forthcoming RIGHT NOW- BUT- if GW IS re-elected, and continues his policies, WE WILL need it- especially if he keeps his foot in his mouth with our allies. I personally wouldn't trust the guy to be a valet parking attendent at a Texas steak house- I don't see how any foriegn leader would risk a single one of thier troops to help out the US as long as GW is in charge- so therefore, the mission will always, with GW in power, continue to fall ONLY on the US. Eventually, to maintain this level, a draft will be needed, if we are to continue- I have, now, thirteen members of my family, not including myself, in the miltary, I am the only one not on active duty orders now. (My brother-in-law just got sent to Kosovo, making it a clean sweep of the whole damn family now LOL) - and believe me, after 18 months of duty, only one is re-upping, and he is an F-15 pilot. Interesting switch too is the feelings towards GW- at first, all but one of them were gung-ho on GW- now, only the fighter pilot considers him anything but, well, a bad military word starting with "cluster".

127 SF Alaska Army Guard troops are leaving for Iraq right now- the first deployment of Alaska Guard troops EVER- including during vietnam- (this is not voluntary- they got called up- Alaska has had voluntary call ups before) - 30 of them are going to be bankrupt before they return, and thier families will lose thier homes. The cut in pay will be too large for them to make thier payments.

Thanks alot GW.

I've heard that particular scenario used a lot lately...

"If Dubya is re-elected, he'll bring back the draft..."

"If GW is re-elected, the draft will come back...."

So lemme get this right....

Charlie Rangel, a Korean War vet and a Democrat congressman from New York introduces a bill that re-introduces the draft. It's sponsored by numerous other Democrats and no Republicans whatsoever. Kerry wants to magically add 40,000 troops to the Army (hmmmm... could this be how he's gonna do that?).....

...and Bush is the one to fear for bringing back the draft?

Call me crazy, but isn't all this "fear" misplaced?

I mean, call me crazy, but it looks like the Dems are a bit more eager to jumpstart it than anyone within the Administration.

We know Rangel is a distinguished veteran, and at least this goves the bill some cred, but what does it say when only three of the fourteen co-sponsors have served in the military? I'm not saying that one has to have served in order to make military related decisions, but the perspective of being a veteran helps.

Suddenly I'm less "worried" about Bush, and more so of Kerry, Rangel & Co.

But you wont hear any of that from the left...

Okay, a quick ends analysis for justifying the draft. We have a "free" society. Many of us enjoy a lot of fruits of this free society. When you mandate that a certain sector of citizens have to either A) leave the country. hide like a rat from the government C) go to jail or D) kill and maybe die for a cause you don't believe in. Those are not the best of choices for members of a 'free' society.

This doesn't make the draft wrong persay, but it does certainly make it unfair and unjust to those who disagree.

There are just too many people to quote to say precisely everything and not make this my ground breaking thesis paper for college I haven't gone to yet. Except that this has veered of the debate

.....
As for the actual debate,

The argument of having the draft is age old, but I think It really has been around since the start of our country.

The need for a draft right now is certainly negligible. The airforce is at max capacity, the Navy is downsizing, everyone from navy is going army, and for some reason the marines are never too hard off to do. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A DRAFT. Political move is yes. its a tactic to get votes off of Bush and on to Kerry. For the election, it's the lesser of two evil's take your choice

My side would be that you can either defend yourself, OR NOT.
Personally it sickens me that someone would say "I don't want to go to war", and send someone else off to die for them... but hey, I'm a traditionalist in nature.


Just my spin.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ---- Thomas Jefferson, 17??

There won't be a draft. This was discussed at length on a different thread a while back (that addressed the bills that are still being bickered over on this thread. It is purely election-time fear-mongering. I'm too lazy to put up the link to the older thread, but y'all know to look it up.

As I stated earlier, we are already in the process of adding 30,000 troops to the Army over a 3 year period. This, along with our internal restructuring career fields and redistribution of numbers to go along with that, should do a lot to address some of the manning problems we're having. But it will take time to be felt operationally. Yet, another division or two added to the active force would certainly be welcome. It would have to been done incrementally over a period of time - like the current increase in force is being done.

Unfortunately, and, DTOM, I'm sure you're well aware of this - Army BCT for the combat support and combat service support MOSs has really been watered down over the years. No amount of reciting "all standards are the same" can change that hard, unpleasant fact. It was brought home hard to us during the initial phase, and has been hitting harder during the past year.

Recently TRADOC has instituted a new list of 40 combat tasks that every soldier will now be trained in prior to graduating from AIT. Many are tasks that these CS/CSS troops never had exposure to before - and most definitely not at the entry level. This is not only due to the realization that these troops are not trained in these tasks that may now be critical to saving their - and others' - lives; but because many soldiers go to their units and deploy before their unit has any opportunity to train them for the mission in-house.

This is a very good thing - as are many of the other changes in the pipeline. But this is one that will start having an immediate effect as trainees graduate from AIT, hit their units and deploy into theater.

The only delaying effect on the train-up is the fact that many of the NCO instructors at the various CS/CSS AITs are not qualified to teach many of those tasks, and themselves have to go through a period of train-up before they can kick-start the program. Ft. Benning is backed up well into the FY with a prioritized list of TRADOC cadre that require the training.

It would take awhile, right, to train someone for today's military? And that's supposed to be an impediment. Well, in case you haven't heard, this war on terror (so-called) isn't going to end anytime soon. And the bill that the Democrats (each and every one of these sponsors needs to get voted out, btw) calls for 2 years of mandatory service. If that starts, people will get the training.

And hey, if the Bill is nonsense, why isn't it dead? Really dead, gone, can't be brought up and voted on, etc. Dead.

They'll get conditioned, too. Yes, I'm sorry, but I know military people, and they were conditioned during their training and time in the service. It's logical, really. If you are told to kill someone by a commanding officer, you do it. The end. Now what unconditioned person will kill someone just because someone with more metal on his/her shirt tells them to?

However, I certainly hope I'm reading the spin wrong on this one. I don't want there to be a draft under any president, nor a period of mandatory service. I definately see the point about the military not wanting one, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. The mistake has been made before. Hopefully, if our so-called leaders make it again, Americans will at least not make the mistake of going along with them.

Ralou posts:
Both bills, House and Senate...are already dead. They've been in Committee for some time now. All bills proposed go to the appropriate committee......most just never leave to be voted on. Like these.


I'm curious as to where you get this notion of 'conditioned' from? I have spent 18 years as an Infantryman, trained primarily, to close with and destroy the enemy. But in my Army, we practice drills and procedures to standardize operations against an enemy in a given situation. This is implemented to save lives, both our own and 'collateral' civilians. I am starting to think that you have a skewed vision of the military, which is to be expected, in my experience. Hollywood does wonders to misrepresent what we do for a living. For what it's worth, every unit I have been a member of, has valued the opinions and technique suggestions of all soldiers, concerning how to accomplish a given task. Normally this is done in conditions not under fire, as combat situations do not allow for consensus's to be held. And I, as a leader, value input, when situations permit, from my soldiers. That doesn't sound like your vision of 'conditioning' to me.

Mustang posts:

I agree with you completely, and have thought the same for years. But I do know of (and this may not be universal), of Reserve and Guard units training at home station for upcoming deployments to Iraq and A-stan. Using lessons learned from previous unit's deployments and incorporating arab speaking COB's (Civilians on the Battlefield), these units are 100% more prepared than any were back in 2003.
So to turn this back to the topic, I believe that all Army units, with lessons learned and ramped up training, will be up to the task of combatting Iraqi/Al Qeada insurgents, making a draft uneccessary.
Remember, our army, in WWI, Norths Africa (WWII), Korea and Vietnam all had a learning curve to overcome. I think we are starting to do the same in Iraq.

Very true, that is why the draft, as i have been saying, should only be used when our liberty and freedoms are threaten.

This means that it should only be used when our freedom is threaten, and America is not at that point.

Well I am back from drill.

AS FOR DONTREADME WHO SAID THAT bath/laundry serving as guardman and patrolling was nonsense. That assesment is nonsense....I Know from FACTS that laundry textile spcialists and water purification units are patrolling sectors in Baghdad. I Know for a fact that they are not performing their MoS's. I am in the reserves. My best friend who I joined the military with is in one of these cross-sectioend units and has been in Iraq for 8 months. His Mos (my MOS) has been rendered obsolete. Do you know what he does? His platoon convoys trucks, two of the other platoons in his company pull 12 hour gate guard shifts every other day. ONCE AGAIN FACT. This is directly from the person I joined the military with in the buddy program. His MOS has been rendered obsolete. Civilians do his job...his new job is convoy driver and patrolman.

In addition my unit (a non combat MOS) is slated for deployment to the box next year. If you read closely I mentioned my MOS is no longer operational or needed in Iraq. Why are we getting shipped? Guard, Patrolling, Convoys. FACT.

Our cook or Food service specialist from our unit got back from a cross section deployment from Iraq a few months back.....he didnt serve food he was thrown into a cavalry scout platoon.

Do not tell me that its nonsense. I have factual proof that says it isnt.

I don't get my info from Hollywood. I got it from people who served. The impression I got was, CO says shoot, you don't stop and think about it, you shoot. That is conditioning, plain and simple. So is making someone sit still through an hour of class when they're eight and want to go out and play. Conditioning isn't a dirty word: until people are forced to undergo the kind that teaches them to kill their fellow human beings because they were told to. That's conditioning no one should have to go through.

You contradicted yourself by saying the Bills were dead, but then you said they're stuck in committee, where MOST bills never leave. Most. As in, the bills aren't dead. Not that it would matter if they were, because a new one could always be implemented.


Also, you don't think being taught to close with and kill the enemy is conditioning? Who told you who the enemy is? Did they let you decide for yourself that the Iraqis aren't but Iranians are? Or Iraqis aren't, but the British are?

No. They told you who was the enemy. That is conditioning.

What alternative ralou do you suggest to someone who is face to face with their enemy and the enemy wants to kill them, besides killing them?



Interesting fact about the bills in committee right now. One of the bills proposed by the democrats suggest that women and men register for selective service. It comes from a man you think the military us weighed unfairly for minorities. This is true at first glance of the service men and women (Minorities in the Military), but upon further looking, one sees "Though Rangel is right that blacks and lower-income Americans still serve in disproportionate numbers, that fact misses another significant trend. While blacks are 20% of the military - compared with 12% of the U.S. population - they make up a far smaller percentage of troops in combat jobs on the front line. In a host of high-risk slots - from Army commandos to Navy and Air Force fighter pilots - blacks constitute less than 5% of the force, statistics show." (Source).

As you can see the Bill really has nothing to do with the draft but a need for equality in the military.



There is no discussion about who the enemy is, the enemy is anyone running at you shooting you. There is no discussion like "all blacks are enemies" but that the enemy is the man, woman, and child who wants to kill you.

Another interesting fact about the draft is that it will take 3 years before the first 'drafty' enters combat. (one year to implement the draft, two years training, they just don't hand you a gun and say kill people)

Another interesting fact is that there is not lack of killers, there is a lack of doctors and linguist specialist in the military today. Those would be the first drafted. And that draft will probably include people from 25-41.

Another interesting fact about drafts is that in world war II the draft extended from 18-45 and the average age of a solider was 25. While the average age in vietnam was 18. One problem with the Vietnam draft was the fact that Johnson had committed ground troops without heavy weaponry which increase death, and with death came the need to replace the dead with fresh soldiers.

Um, did you notice that those 'high risk' positions