Full Version: No Draft No Way!
Surfing at michaelmoore.com, I was pointed to this web site, which details many actions which we can take against the draft. Apparently, according to the site, there could be a draft as soon as June of 2005! Protests are scheduled for March 31, 2005.
I am assuming that these students are still getting a spam email that was previously debunked here at snopes.com and also refuted by the selective service themselves. But anyhow, there are actions to take. For instance:
Their flyer has some additional actions to consider - PDF link - including a photo of someone burning a draft card...
The flyer urges:
If you recall, there were many claims by Democratic candidates in '04 that we were going to have a draft if GW Bush was re-elected. You can view these and our arguments in this thread from election season.
Indeed the military is facing recruiting shortages and that our combat troops are stretched thin, and that our armed services are offering increased bonuses and incentives for re-upping in both guard and active duty services.
Questions for debate:
Is there a real chance that a military draft is coming in 2005? Other than the now-defeated H.R. 163, is there any pending legislation to re-instate the draft?
Would throwing recruiters off campuses and shutting down recruitment offices reduce volunteer enlistment, thus increasing the likelihood of a draft?
Being quite serious here - Is there a need for college students and activists and others who feel passionately that they are excluded from the current political debate to protest something, anything, even a seemingly non-issue?
I am assuming that these students are still getting a spam email that was previously debunked here at snopes.com and also refuted by the selective service themselves. But anyhow, there are actions to take. For instance:
QUOTE
Let's Organize NOW to Stop the Draft:
SIGN UP to volunteer, be a local organizing center, endorse, list your local action on this site!
1) Donate to help build a network of educators, activists, and resisters to fight the draft--before it returns.
2) Organize an anti-draft meeting at your school, church or mosque, union hall, etc. Contact us at 212-633-6646 for help and speakers. Download the No Draft No Way petition.
3) Organize protests outside the selective service office in your area.
4) Contact local No Draft No Way organizers and find out how to get involved.
SIGN UP to volunteer, be a local organizing center, endorse, list your local action on this site!
1) Donate to help build a network of educators, activists, and resisters to fight the draft--before it returns.
2) Organize an anti-draft meeting at your school, church or mosque, union hall, etc. Contact us at 212-633-6646 for help and speakers. Download the No Draft No Way petition.
3) Organize protests outside the selective service office in your area.
4) Contact local No Draft No Way organizers and find out how to get involved.
Their flyer has some additional actions to consider - PDF link - including a photo of someone burning a draft card...
The flyer urges:
QUOTE
Student walk outs
Shut down recruiting stations
Picket selective service offices
Throw military recruiters off your campus
Shut down recruiting stations
Picket selective service offices
Throw military recruiters off your campus
If you recall, there were many claims by Democratic candidates in '04 that we were going to have a draft if GW Bush was re-elected. You can view these and our arguments in this thread from election season.
Indeed the military is facing recruiting shortages and that our combat troops are stretched thin, and that our armed services are offering increased bonuses and incentives for re-upping in both guard and active duty services.
Questions for debate:
Is there a real chance that a military draft is coming in 2005? Other than the now-defeated H.R. 163, is there any pending legislation to re-instate the draft?
Would throwing recruiters off campuses and shutting down recruitment offices reduce volunteer enlistment, thus increasing the likelihood of a draft?
Being quite serious here - Is there a need for college students and activists and others who feel passionately that they are excluded from the current political debate to protest something, anything, even a seemingly non-issue?
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Mar 30 2005, 01:48 PM)
Questions for debate:
Is there a real chance that a military draft is coming in 2005? Other than the now-defeated H.R. 163, is there any pending legislation to re-instate the draft?
Would throwing recruiters off campuses and shutting down recruitment offices reduce volunteer enlistment, thus increasing the likelihood of a draft?
Being quite serious here - Is there a need for college students and activists and others who feel passionately that they are excluded from the current political debate to protest something, anything, even a seemingly non-issue?
Is there a real chance that a military draft is coming in 2005? Other than the now-defeated H.R. 163, is there any pending legislation to re-instate the draft?
Would throwing recruiters off campuses and shutting down recruitment offices reduce volunteer enlistment, thus increasing the likelihood of a draft?
Being quite serious here - Is there a need for college students and activists and others who feel passionately that they are excluded from the current political debate to protest something, anything, even a seemingly non-issue?
1) No...a draft would be political suicide for the president and the Republicans. You know those majorities in Congress? Gone in 2006. It's not going to happen nor is it needed. Iraqi Security Forces are taking on more and more responsibilities every day. US Forces only act as back up to the Iraqi force. A draft doesnt make sense at this point in time.
US Death Rate Down in Iraq Since January Elections
QUOTE
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The rate of U.S. deaths in the Iraq (news - web sites) war has fallen sharply since the historic January elections as American military leaders tout progress against the insurgency but warn of a long road ahead.
March is on pace for the lowest monthly U.S. military death toll in 13 months, and the rate of American fatalities has fallen by about 50 percent since the parliamentary elections in which millions of Iraqis defied insurgents to cast ballots.
Defense analysts noted that while violence aimed at U.S. forces has declined in the 7 1/2 weeks since the election, insurgent attacks on Iraqis have escalated. They added that previous lulls in attacks on U.S. forces in the two-year war have been followed by intense periods of violence.
March is on pace for the lowest monthly U.S. military death toll in 13 months, and the rate of American fatalities has fallen by about 50 percent since the parliamentary elections in which millions of Iraqis defied insurgents to cast ballots.
Defense analysts noted that while violence aimed at U.S. forces has declined in the 7 1/2 weeks since the election, insurgent attacks on Iraqis have escalated. They added that previous lulls in attacks on U.S. forces in the two-year war have been followed by intense periods of violence.
The insurgency is getting desperate. They are attacking the very people they are supposedly trying to help. They are also disheartened and on the brink of giving up:
Iraq's insurgents ‘seek exit strategy'
QUOTE
Many of Iraq's predominantly Sunni Arab insurgents would lay down their arms and join the political process in exchange for guarantees of their safety and that of their co-religionists, according to a prominent Sunni politician.
Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, who heads Iraq's main monarchist movement and is in contact with guerrilla leaders, said many insurgents including former officials of the ruling Ba'ath party, army officers, and Islamists have been searching for a way to end their campaign against US troops and Iraqi government forces since the January 30 election.
Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, who heads Iraq's main monarchist movement and is in contact with guerrilla leaders, said many insurgents including former officials of the ruling Ba'ath party, army officers, and Islamists have been searching for a way to end their campaign against US troops and Iraqi government forces since the January 30 election.
Hardly the type of situation that warrants a call to arms.We are winning and they are losing.
2) No...throwing recruiters off campus has nothing to do with whether or not their is a draft. It is probably just another rant by the anti-war, anti-military people trying to get their entire agenda forced upon others. The military is developing newer technologies every day that require less and less human personel on the ground to do a job. We lost 1,800 men in the first US battle of WW2 against the Nazis in Africa. It was ok...it was war. Now we lose 1,500 men in 2 years and its a catastrophe. I am not making light of the sacrifices of our soldiers...but rather making a comparison on how the circumstances ofwarfare have changed. We need less and less men and women on the ground so a draft is not necessary.
3) Absolutely. Being i will be attending college in the fall...ill probably looking for something to do in my spare time...why not protest something? Gives people the satisfaction that they are doing something with their time instead of wasting it yelling at TV commentators from their couch. Then again, maybe ill get a job.
Is there a real chance that a military draft is coming in 2005? Other than the now-defeated H.R. 163, is there any pending legislation to re-instate the draft?
Would be political suicide at this time- it would have to occur after 2006
Would throwing recruiters off campuses and shutting down recruitment offices reduce volunteer enlistment, thus increasing the likelihood of a draft?
Doubtful, but it would be more ethical. Targeting young poeple the way the military do during war time is not different than a credit card company targeting these kids- they really don't know what they are getting into- and since most of the "good " MOS jobs in the army are not needed right now, rather the "bulletstopper" jobs- there is more pressure for the recruiters to fib a bit at recruitment time- if not outright lie
Being quite serious here - Is there a need for college students and activists and others who feel passionately that they are excluded from the current political debate to protest something, anything, even a seemingly non-issue?
Well, not exactly a serious question- more proseltyzing really- but here goes- ALL POSITVE CHANGE IN THIS COUNTRY AND ANY OTHER FOR DEMOCRACY HAVE STARTED ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES.
Whether it is the Ukraine or Berkley- all the protest is started on campuses around the nations, then migrates to those that can effect real change on the goverment. I admire these kids- they are truly the heros of our society.
The draft is not a non-issue- if GW thought he could get away with it for a minute he would. Our military is stretched incredibly thin and recruitment goals are far from being met, even with huge bonuses. I certainly won't be "re-upping" even with massive financial incentives!
The good news is that the PNAC folks, GW and company, will not be able to invade any other countries with the force we now have. So that basically limits us to staying in Iraq at this time.
DTOM and other military folks here have pointed out some huge inefficiencies in the military, with command staffs and the like, that may be reorganized, and this may be a good thing, but overall, our military is hurtin' for certain right now. I have never seen a TOE in a military right wing state like Alaska be so empty right now! Critical MOS of ever flavor is going unfilled for two years now- my Dad, a former CSMJ, said he has never seen it this low since the last draft was re-instated,
If we wish to keep up this level of activity of the miltary for years on end, recruitment will simply not keep up with need, good old "supply and demand"- and something will have to give, whether it is to reduce our commitments abroad or start the draft.
That is why this issue continues to "have legs"- because it is simple numbers that don't add up right now!
Would be political suicide at this time- it would have to occur after 2006
Would throwing recruiters off campuses and shutting down recruitment offices reduce volunteer enlistment, thus increasing the likelihood of a draft?
Doubtful, but it would be more ethical. Targeting young poeple the way the military do during war time is not different than a credit card company targeting these kids- they really don't know what they are getting into- and since most of the "good " MOS jobs in the army are not needed right now, rather the "bulletstopper" jobs- there is more pressure for the recruiters to fib a bit at recruitment time- if not outright lie
Being quite serious here - Is there a need for college students and activists and others who feel passionately that they are excluded from the current political debate to protest something, anything, even a seemingly non-issue?
Well, not exactly a serious question- more proseltyzing really- but here goes- ALL POSITVE CHANGE IN THIS COUNTRY AND ANY OTHER FOR DEMOCRACY HAVE STARTED ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES.
Whether it is the Ukraine or Berkley- all the protest is started on campuses around the nations, then migrates to those that can effect real change on the goverment. I admire these kids- they are truly the heros of our society.
The draft is not a non-issue- if GW thought he could get away with it for a minute he would. Our military is stretched incredibly thin and recruitment goals are far from being met, even with huge bonuses. I certainly won't be "re-upping" even with massive financial incentives!
The good news is that the PNAC folks, GW and company, will not be able to invade any other countries with the force we now have. So that basically limits us to staying in Iraq at this time.
DTOM and other military folks here have pointed out some huge inefficiencies in the military, with command staffs and the like, that may be reorganized, and this may be a good thing, but overall, our military is hurtin' for certain right now. I have never seen a TOE in a military right wing state like Alaska be so empty right now! Critical MOS of ever flavor is going unfilled for two years now- my Dad, a former CSMJ, said he has never seen it this low since the last draft was re-instated,
If we wish to keep up this level of activity of the miltary for years on end, recruitment will simply not keep up with need, good old "supply and demand"- and something will have to give, whether it is to reduce our commitments abroad or start the draft.
That is why this issue continues to "have legs"- because it is simple numbers that don't add up right now!
QUOTE
Is there a real chance that a military draft is coming in 2005? Other than the now-defeated H.R. 163, is there any pending legislation to re-instate the draft?
Would throwing recruiters off campuses and shutting down recruitment offices reduce volunteer enlistment, thus increasing the likelihood of a draft?
Being quite serious here - Is there a need for college students and activists and others who feel passionately that they are excluded from the current political debate to protest something, anything, even a seemingly non-issue?
Would throwing recruiters off campuses and shutting down recruitment offices reduce volunteer enlistment, thus increasing the likelihood of a draft?
Being quite serious here - Is there a need for college students and activists and others who feel passionately that they are excluded from the current political debate to protest something, anything, even a seemingly non-issue?
1. I believe that there will not be a draft. This is a very small conflict, compared to past conflicts where drafts have occurred. (Example: Vietnam) We have plenty of soldiers in Iraq to train Iraqis how to fight and protect their homeland.
2. Registration for the military is already dropping as it is. We need ways to get people to register for the army, not removing recruiters from college campuses. In every military conflict, there are rumors which circulate about a draft. Who knows, we could have a draft anytime.
3. Yes. In the Constitution, Americans are given rights to allow them to protest anything, whether it be a strike, the President, or any other issue, even if it doesn't relate.
Is there a real chance that a military draft is coming in 2005? Other than the now-defeated H.R. 163, is there any pending legislation to re-instate the draft?
Coupled with National Guard units seeing a drop in recruits it will probably happen sooner than later. I’m not aware of any pending legislation but it appears the wheels are in motion:
This group hasn’t effectively worked in over 30 years so any activity could be a sign of the impending draft.
Would throwing recruiters off campuses and shutting down recruitment offices reduce volunteer enlistment, thus increasing the likelihood of a draft?
It certainly can’t help with recruitment. Upon graduating college during Reagan's recession and with dim employment prospects I spent several hours in the recruiters office. But not to worry (from the same link).
Since most public colleges have seen a 50% increase in tuition over the last 4 years (mostly due to a drop in federal funding, another great benefit of Bush’s tax cut) this could be a marvelous scare tactic to entice recruits. Who says this administration doesn’t have a comprehensive domestic plan.
Being quite serious here - Is there a need for college students and activists and others who feel passionately that they are excluded from the current political debate to protest something, anything, even a seemingly non-issue?
I’ve often criticized the current generation for their apparent apathy on global issues (my half hearted reasoning for the lack of good music). I’m sure fires will be stoked when the draft is re-instituted. And yes, they should protest their little game pads off.
Coupled with National Guard units seeing a drop in recruits it will probably happen sooner than later. I’m not aware of any pending legislation but it appears the wheels are in motion:
QUOTE
There are already signs that the Selective Service System (SSS), as it is known, is gearing up for business. By March 31, the SSS boards in every state must certify to Washington that they are ready to induct the first young men within 75 days.
This group hasn’t effectively worked in over 30 years so any activity could be a sign of the impending draft.
Would throwing recruiters off campuses and shutting down recruitment offices reduce volunteer enlistment, thus increasing the likelihood of a draft?
It certainly can’t help with recruitment. Upon graduating college during Reagan's recession and with dim employment prospects I spent several hours in the recruiters office. But not to worry (from the same link).
QUOTE
Under President George W. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" plan, public high schools must provide military recruiters with contact information for every student or face a cutoff of federal aid.
"Kids tell me that not only do the recruiters call them at home, but they have copies of their grades, and will say, 'So Johnny, you're not doing very well in class. How are you going to get into college?'" Rosario said. "There is an opt-out form, but a lot of parents don't know about it."
"Kids tell me that not only do the recruiters call them at home, but they have copies of their grades, and will say, 'So Johnny, you're not doing very well in class. How are you going to get into college?'" Rosario said. "There is an opt-out form, but a lot of parents don't know about it."
Since most public colleges have seen a 50% increase in tuition over the last 4 years (mostly due to a drop in federal funding, another great benefit of Bush’s tax cut) this could be a marvelous scare tactic to entice recruits. Who says this administration doesn’t have a comprehensive domestic plan.
Being quite serious here - Is there a need for college students and activists and others who feel passionately that they are excluded from the current political debate to protest something, anything, even a seemingly non-issue?
I’ve often criticized the current generation for their apparent apathy on global issues (my half hearted reasoning for the lack of good music). I’m sure fires will be stoked when the draft is re-instituted. And yes, they should protest their little game pads off.
Is there a real chance that a military draft is coming in 2005? Other than the now-defeated H.R. 163, is there any pending legislation to re-instate the draft?
I sure hope not, but there was a very interesting article in the SF Chronicle weighing in on this. It does a good job of presenting a comprehensive picture.
On the one hand Bush is completely opposed to a draft, or so he says:
However, almost everyone across the political spectrum relaizes that we are about to hit a resource crunch:
There are quite a few senators talking about increasing the size of the active duty and reserve rosters and some of them even have ideas like this:
So, as of right now I'd say that there is little possibility of that. However, if we happen to get in another conflict with say Iran or N. Korea in the near future then that could significantly change things. Our foreign policy is certainly setup so that situation could present itself, but predicting it would be an exercise in reading your crystal ball.
Would throwing recruiters off campuses and shutting down recruitment offices reduce volunteer enlistment, thus increasing the likelihood of a draft?
It probably would, but I think what a lot of people object to is the tactics used by recruiters. Fife and Drum cites some of the practices at high schools in the last post, and if you have watched F 9/11 you've seen one angle on recruiting. I don't know how typical that is of all recruiters but based on my brief flirtation with it in high school it doesn't seem far off.
Being quite serious here - Is there a need for college students and activists and others who feel passionately that they are excluded from the current political debate to protest something, anything, even a seemingly non-issue?
Also being quite serious - is there really a need for people to protest a 30 year old legal decision by the supreme court allowing for abortion, including shooting doctors at clinics, when they have little if any chance of ever changing it?
What's my point? Well the point is that is what is great about this country, anyone can protest whatever they want. It is part of our Democratic process. I personally don't think this is something worthy of my attention quite yet, but I am glad to see people taking an interest in the political process. Getting involved ensures that in general you are better informed about what is going on in the world than the average person. The views you develop might be biased, but at least you have the information and the capability to make an informed decision.
In 5 years the people responsible for this protest may be telling us all "I told you so" or they may not. I hope it is the latter, but if it is the former I'll likely be right there beside them.
I sure hope not, but there was a very interesting article in the SF Chronicle weighing in on this. It does a good job of presenting a comprehensive picture.
On the one hand Bush is completely opposed to a draft, or so he says:
QUOTE
It's important to note that the Bush administration adamantly scorns the idea of a resumed draft. It won't even agree to a permanent increase in the Army's size, which Congress temporarily boosted by 30,000 last year, saying instead that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plan to transform the military into a high-tech, mobile force will meet the nation's needs.
However, almost everyone across the political spectrum relaizes that we are about to hit a resource crunch:
QUOTE
But the administration does admit it has a problem, particularly in filling the ranks in the 500,000-person regular Army and the 675,000-person Army National Guard and Army Reserve, which have been called upon to carry a large part of the burden of deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan. In a March 23 press conference, Army Secretary Francis Harvey said that in the first two months of 2005, the active Army was meeting 94 percent of its recruiting goal, the Reserve 90 percent and the Guard 75 percent.
There are quite a few senators talking about increasing the size of the active duty and reserve rosters and some of them even have ideas like this:
QUOTE
So far, the idea of a new draft has attracted scant support in Congress. Rep Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., and Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont -- both military veterans -- want all 19-year-olds to do a year or two of national service. Military service would be one of their options.
So, as of right now I'd say that there is little possibility of that. However, if we happen to get in another conflict with say Iran or N. Korea in the near future then that could significantly change things. Our foreign policy is certainly setup so that situation could present itself, but predicting it would be an exercise in reading your crystal ball.
Would throwing recruiters off campuses and shutting down recruitment offices reduce volunteer enlistment, thus increasing the likelihood of a draft?
It probably would, but I think what a lot of people object to is the tactics used by recruiters. Fife and Drum cites some of the practices at high schools in the last post, and if you have watched F 9/11 you've seen one angle on recruiting. I don't know how typical that is of all recruiters but based on my brief flirtation with it in high school it doesn't seem far off.
Being quite serious here - Is there a need for college students and activists and others who feel passionately that they are excluded from the current political debate to protest something, anything, even a seemingly non-issue?
Also being quite serious - is there really a need for people to protest a 30 year old legal decision by the supreme court allowing for abortion, including shooting doctors at clinics, when they have little if any chance of ever changing it?
What's my point? Well the point is that is what is great about this country, anyone can protest whatever they want. It is part of our Democratic process. I personally don't think this is something worthy of my attention quite yet, but I am glad to see people taking an interest in the political process. Getting involved ensures that in general you are better informed about what is going on in the world than the average person. The views you develop might be biased, but at least you have the information and the capability to make an informed decision.
In 5 years the people responsible for this protest may be telling us all "I told you so" or they may not. I hope it is the latter, but if it is the former I'll likely be right there beside them.
Is there a real chance that a military draft is coming in 2005? Other than the now-defeated H.R. 163, is there any pending legislation to re-instate the draft?
I highly doubt there will be a draft. As we have discussed before, the military is much too advanced to allow someone to easily integrate a few weeks after walking in off the street. To my knowledge, there is no current legislation seeking to reintroduce the draft. The former draft bill was sponsored by Democrats who were opposed by the war.
Would throwing recruiters off campuses and shutting down recruitment offices reduce volunteer enlistment, thus increasing the likelihood of a draft?
I would think it would hurt recruiting. I still do not think that a draft would be necessary. As with any market, the military must offer a pay at which people are willing to work versus other alternatives. In this case, the military will simply raise the GI bill or recruitment bonuses or other incentives to increase recruitment. No draft needed.
Being quite serious here - Is there a need for college students and activists and others who feel passionately that they are excluded from the current political debate to protest something, anything, even a seemingly non-issue?
This one is a bit far from the others, but: I do think that activists need something to protest. I disagree with CruisingRam's assertion that all positive change began on college campuses. I'd agree that some positive changes have originated there, but hardly all.
I recently tried to watch a "Teach In" anti-war demonstration held on some college campus. None of the participants were college students, most were professors or other academics. It was kinda funny to watch, but after awhile it got repetitive. These people couldn't agree about much, except that Bush and his oil cronies (of course) were bad.
I highly doubt there will be a draft. As we have discussed before, the military is much too advanced to allow someone to easily integrate a few weeks after walking in off the street. To my knowledge, there is no current legislation seeking to reintroduce the draft. The former draft bill was sponsored by Democrats who were opposed by the war.
Would throwing recruiters off campuses and shutting down recruitment offices reduce volunteer enlistment, thus increasing the likelihood of a draft?
I would think it would hurt recruiting. I still do not think that a draft would be necessary. As with any market, the military must offer a pay at which people are willing to work versus other alternatives. In this case, the military will simply raise the GI bill or recruitment bonuses or other incentives to increase recruitment. No draft needed.
Being quite serious here - Is there a need for college students and activists and others who feel passionately that they are excluded from the current political debate to protest something, anything, even a seemingly non-issue?
This one is a bit far from the others, but: I do think that activists need something to protest. I disagree with CruisingRam's assertion that all positive change began on college campuses. I'd agree that some positive changes have originated there, but hardly all.
I recently tried to watch a "Teach In" anti-war demonstration held on some college campus. None of the participants were college students, most were professors or other academics. It was kinda funny to watch, but after awhile it got repetitive. These people couldn't agree about much, except that Bush and his oil cronies (of course) were bad.
Is there a real chance that a military draft is coming in 2005? Other than the now-defeated H.R. 163, is there any pending legislation to re-instate the draft?
While I don’t know if a draft will happen this year, chances are very good that it will happen. A very interesting article in Rolling Stone addressed this issue. Some things I didn’t know about the draft discussions; the age range has increased (18 to 34), and trades/professions are being specifically targeted in addition to regular cannon fodder (aka grunts), morphing in "to a draft of smaller numbers of critical-skills personnel.". So, you go to medical school, accumulate crippling student loan debt, and just when you think you’re on your professional way at the still-tender age of 30 or so, you get yanked into the military? Yikes!
Even though I'm not of an age to have to worry about it personally, that's not the kind of country I want to live in.
While I don’t know if a draft will happen this year, chances are very good that it will happen. A very interesting article in Rolling Stone addressed this issue. Some things I didn’t know about the draft discussions; the age range has increased (18 to 34), and trades/professions are being specifically targeted in addition to regular cannon fodder (aka grunts), morphing in "to a draft of smaller numbers of critical-skills personnel.". So, you go to medical school, accumulate crippling student loan debt, and just when you think you’re on your professional way at the still-tender age of 30 or so, you get yanked into the military? Yikes!
Even though I'm not of an age to have to worry about it personally, that's not the kind of country I want to live in.QUOTE
The Pentagon, which can barely attract enough recruits to maintain current troop levels, has involuntarily extended the enlistments of as many as 100,000 soldiers. Desperate for troops, the Army has lowered its standards to let in twenty-five percent more high school dropouts, and the Marines are now offering as much as $30,000 to anyone who re-enlists. To understand the scope of the crisis, consider this: The United States is pouring nearly as much money into incentives for new recruits -- almost $300 million -- as it is into international tsunami relief.
"The Army's maxed out here," says retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, who served as Air Force chief of staff under the first President Bush. "The Defense Department and the president seem to be still operating off the rosy scenario that this will be over soon, that this pain is temporary and therefore we'll just grit our teeth, hunker down and get out on the other side of this. That's a bad assumption."
<snip>
Michael O'Hanlon, a military-manpower scholar at the Brookings Institute, believes a return to a full-blown draft will become "unavoidable" if the United States is forced into another war. Rolling Stone
"The Army's maxed out here," says retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, who served as Air Force chief of staff under the first President Bush. "The Defense Department and the president seem to be still operating off the rosy scenario that this will be over soon, that this pain is temporary and therefore we'll just grit our teeth, hunker down and get out on the other side of this. That's a bad assumption."
<snip>
Michael O'Hanlon, a military-manpower scholar at the Brookings Institute, believes a return to a full-blown draft will become "unavoidable" if the United States is forced into another war. Rolling Stone
Well, if Rolling Stone thinks it's going to happen, that's pretty strong evidence it will. 
This entire thing is just more proof that the moonbat left in this country is completely devoid of any real ideas on the actual issues facing our nation. So, instead of actually coming up with an idea on those, they instead seek to create an issue that doesn't exist and use it to scare their minions and give them something to worry about and make new signs and march around shouting and calling Republicans names.
Is there a real chance that a military draft is coming in 2005? Other than the now-defeated H.R. 163, is there any pending legislation to re-instate the draft?
None, nada, zip, ain't gonna happen. Period. Bush doesn't want a draft, Rumsfeld doesn't want a draft, Dick Myers doesn't want a draft, it ain't gonna happen. There are no bills pending about a draft and if one does a search on THOMAS and the Congressional Record for the phrase "military draft" for the current session of Congress, they will find ZERO references to that phrase.
Thus, it would appear that the only ones talking about something like this are the looney moonbat blogs out there.
Would throwing recruiters off campuses and shutting down recruitment offices reduce volunteer enlistment, thus increasing the likelihood of a draft?
It might have an effect, and it's interesting to note that such a bill expressing Conress' sense that shouldn't happen (H. CON RES 63).....
passed the House on as vote of 387-84. 83 of the nays were Democrats (including Stark, Rangel and Pelosi) and Sanders accounted for the other nay vote.
So, if the intended effect of barring recruiters from college campuses is to institute a draft, it would appear that the Democratic Party is the one intending to do that. Something for young people to keep in mind in 2006.
Being quite serious here - Is there a need for college students and activists and others who feel passionately that they are excluded from the current political debate to protest something, anything, even a seemingly non-issue?
Oh, I suppose. Although making issues up to protest probably isn't the most effective way to become included in the political debate. But hey, whatever floats their boat.
This entire thing is just more proof that the moonbat left in this country is completely devoid of any real ideas on the actual issues facing our nation. So, instead of actually coming up with an idea on those, they instead seek to create an issue that doesn't exist and use it to scare their minions and give them something to worry about and make new signs and march around shouting and calling Republicans names.
Is there a real chance that a military draft is coming in 2005? Other than the now-defeated H.R. 163, is there any pending legislation to re-instate the draft?
None, nada, zip, ain't gonna happen. Period. Bush doesn't want a draft, Rumsfeld doesn't want a draft, Dick Myers doesn't want a draft, it ain't gonna happen. There are no bills pending about a draft and if one does a search on THOMAS and the Congressional Record for the phrase "military draft" for the current session of Congress, they will find ZERO references to that phrase.
Thus, it would appear that the only ones talking about something like this are the looney moonbat blogs out there.
Would throwing recruiters off campuses and shutting down recruitment offices reduce volunteer enlistment, thus increasing the likelihood of a draft?
It might have an effect, and it's interesting to note that such a bill expressing Conress' sense that shouldn't happen (H. CON RES 63).....
QUOTE
Expressing the continued support of Congress for equal access of military recruiters to institutions of higher education. (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
passed the House on as vote of 387-84. 83 of the nays were Democrats (including Stark, Rangel and Pelosi) and Sanders accounted for the other nay vote.
So, if the intended effect of barring recruiters from college campuses is to institute a draft, it would appear that the Democratic Party is the one intending to do that. Something for young people to keep in mind in 2006.
Being quite serious here - Is there a need for college students and activists and others who feel passionately that they are excluded from the current political debate to protest something, anything, even a seemingly non-issue?
Oh, I suppose. Although making issues up to protest probably isn't the most effective way to become included in the political debate. But hey, whatever floats their boat.
QUOTE
Would throwing recruiters off campuses and shutting down recruitment offices reduce volunteer enlistment, thus increasing the likelihood of a draft?
Doubtful, but it would be more ethical. Targeting young poeple the way the military do during war time is not different than a credit card company targeting these kids- they really don't know what they are getting into- and since most of the "good " MOS jobs in the army are not needed right now, rather the "bulletstopper" jobs- there is more pressure for the recruiters to fib a bit at recruitment time- if not outright lie. - CruisingRam
Doubtful, but it would be more ethical. Targeting young poeple the way the military do during war time is not different than a credit card company targeting these kids- they really don't know what they are getting into- and since most of the "good " MOS jobs in the army are not needed right now, rather the "bulletstopper" jobs- there is more pressure for the recruiters to fib a bit at recruitment time- if not outright lie. - CruisingRam
That's one of the goofier things you've said. Somehow, I seem to remember recruiters "targeting young people" during peace time, even under Saint Bill, so I fail to see how recruiters doing their job during wartime is morally any different during peacetime. Even goofier is the implication that the recruiters are somehow suspect because they're "targeting young people." What, you think they should be going after Gramps and Gramma?
BTW, I don't think there's going to be a draft anytime soon, as in during the next decade.
QUOTE(Fife and Drum @ Apr 4 2005, 12:35 PM)
Is there a real chance that a military draft is coming in 2005? Other than the now-defeated H.R. 163, is there any pending legislation to re-instate the draft?
Coupled with National Guard units seeing a drop in recruits it will probably happen sooner than later. I’m not aware of any pending legislation but it appears the wheels are in motion:
QUOTE
There are already signs that the Selective Service System (SSS), as it is known, is gearing up for business. By March 31, the SSS boards in every state must certify to Washington that they are ready to induct the first young men within 75 days.
This group hasn’t effectively worked in over 30 years so any activity could be a sign of the impending draft.
A couple of things wrong with your link. According to FactCheck.org:
QUOTE
Let's start with a few essential facts. Military conscription ended in the US in 1973. Males aged 18 through 25 still are required to register with the Selective Service System, but it would take an act of Congress to resume actual conscription into military service.
That's not likely. Here's what Selective Service says on its website as of June 14 (emphasis added):
Selective Service System: Notwithstanding recent stories . . . on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft.
An e-mail ominously states that "the Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions." But it turns out that's nothing new: the Selective Service has been trying to fill vacancies on local boards for several years, and the Selective Service isn't part of the Pentagon anyway -- it's an independent agency.
That's not likely. Here's what Selective Service says on its website as of June 14 (emphasis added):
Selective Service System: Notwithstanding recent stories . . . on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft.
An e-mail ominously states that "the Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions." But it turns out that's nothing new: the Selective Service has been trying to fill vacancies on local boards for several years, and the Selective Service isn't part of the Pentagon anyway -- it's an independent agency.
Your link goes on to cite statistics about minorities being overrepresented in number of deaths in Iraq, also false:
QUOTE
It is wrong to say that minorities are disproportionately bearing the burden. Whites are indeed slightly under-represented in today's active-duty military as a whole: They make up 64.2 percent of the force, compared with 69.1 percent of the U.S. population. (The reserve components are somewhat whiter.) But whites are slightly over-represented among the dead, at 70.9 percent.
Conversely, African-Americans are notably over-represented in the military as a whole. They make up 19.1 percent of the active-duty force, and a staggering 24 percent of the Army, as opposed to just 12.1 percent of the population. But blacks are not significantly over-represented among the dead of this global war: They make up only 12.4 percent.
The reason for this discrepancy, say experts, is that although blacks sign up in greater numbers, they cluster pragmatically in noncombat units whose training in mechanics, electronics, and logistics translates well into civilian careers upon leaving uniform. "The proportion of blacks to whites is very much smaller in the combat arms than in other branches," said retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, former commandant of the Army War College and a noted author. He added that Special Forces and aviation units have the smallest percentage of minorities of all segments of the military.
Conversely, African-Americans are notably over-represented in the military as a whole. They make up 19.1 percent of the active-duty force, and a staggering 24 percent of the Army, as opposed to just 12.1 percent of the population. But blacks are not significantly over-represented among the dead of this global war: They make up only 12.4 percent.
The reason for this discrepancy, say experts, is that although blacks sign up in greater numbers, they cluster pragmatically in noncombat units whose training in mechanics, electronics, and logistics translates well into civilian careers upon leaving uniform. "The proportion of blacks to whites is very much smaller in the combat arms than in other branches," said retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, former commandant of the Army War College and a noted author. He added that Special Forces and aviation units have the smallest percentage of minorities of all segments of the military.
Link
I believe much of the talk of a draft is being manufactured by the left, in order to discredit the Bush administration. You simply can't cite any concrete evidence that a draft is imminent, or even a consideration. The only proposals put forth by congress have been by Democrats. The military doesn't want a draft, the administration doesn't want a draft, congress (possibly minus a couple of Dems) doesn't want a draft....and the American people don't want a draft. It seems that when a party stops being for something, they are only left with being against anything.
The Department of Defense has already stated that troop levels are falling in Iraq and will likely continue to do so, down to around 100,000 by FY 2006. Not a compelling argument for a draft.
The depiction of military recruiters, while built on some seeds of truth, has been overblown out of proportion just as the average civilians depiction of a soldier itself. The 'tactics' used by the vast majority are no different than those used by corporate recruiters in trying to hire quality, fit men and women. Though dismissed by the uninformed as used car salesmen, there are enough checks and balances built into the system, that as long as the recruit reads and understands the contract, they have nobody to blame if they fail to appreciate the environment that they find themselves in.
A minor rant if I may.........I understand that it's part of modern vernacular to label the US Infantryman as a 'grunt' (tho most don't know what that really means), I do take offense to being labeled as 'cannon fodder'. Nobody's life is expendable, disposable or sacrificed needlessly. I, as a 'grunt' am apt to be more technologically savvy, street smart and creative than many will ever appreciate. I, as 'cannon fodder' am apt to be responsible for weapons, vehicles and equipment worth more than most will make in ten years, not to mention the health, morale, training and need I say........ lives, than you may even be able to conceive.
So please people, lend a little reverence when you bandy about the terms cannon fodder and grunt......we're likely to be more than meets the eye, especially if you've received your military experience from Hollywood.
Questions for debate:
Is there a real chance that a military draft is coming in 2005? Other than the now-defeated H.R. 163 <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:@@@P>, is there any pending legislation to re-instate the draft?
I am not aware of any bill sponsored by the Republican Party to institute a draft in recent decades.
Would throwing recruiters off campuses and shutting down recruitment offices reduce volunteer enlistment, thus increasing the likelihood of a draft?
No, that describes pretty much the current situation.
Being quite serious here - Is there a need for college students and activists and others who feel passionately that they are excluded from the current political debate to protest something, anything, even a seemingly non-issue?
How could anyone of voting age consider himself or herself excluded from current political debate? This is the most inclusive country in the world and all citizens are a part of the political debate if they get off the couch and go to the polls and vote. If young persons in draft age find themselves vulnerable then they may only blame their extended families because it takes grandparents, parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters and cousins to support a draft so the youth are not under represented.
In my opinion there will be no draft unless China would start a major conflict. Regardless of protest mentioned above countermeasures are already in mind to cause enough citizens to comply to serve. For example an alternative service could be offered to those objecting to direct combat resulting in a no contest situation of duty to country. A simple lottery to cause you to postpone your life or make plans to move to Canada. If a draft were initiated it would be for Homeland Security and would require all eligible citizens, young men and women that have not served in active or reserve military duty to serve a minimum of six years service in support of homeland security. Citizens would line up for a couple years of “active duty” if the choice was prison, six years guarding a nuclear power plant or bridge or volunteering for a three year tour of duty.
The pentagon desires a smaller force with smarter weapons. The last thing they want is to spend $150,000 training a soldier that don’t want to be a soldier to give them a bad conduct discharge for drugs or misconduct, they would rather double the compensation and entitlements for voluntary service first.
The war in Iraq is calming down now that it is clear we will not elect Howard Dean and cut and run so our troop loss is tolerable. We have enough soldiers to fight two consecutive wars and the only problem is overseas rotation to a variety of commitments. Western Europe is optional and troop levels could be drastically reduced since we have ability to rapidly deploy. In times of war many soldiers volunteer for back-to-back tours in Korea, Germany or Bosnia since they have family or simply like the duty at the location or prefer the duty to being deployed to combat. Reserves gain rank and retirement points while on active duty giving them an increased reason to stay on for the retirement or suplemental income if that was the reason for initial enlistment. Short of another major combat action I can see no reason the government would begin a draft since it is much less costly to increase pay and benefits to entice volunteers.
Is there a real chance that a military draft is coming in 2005? Other than the now-defeated H.R. 163 <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:@@@P>, is there any pending legislation to re-instate the draft?
I am not aware of any bill sponsored by the Republican Party to institute a draft in recent decades.
Would throwing recruiters off campuses and shutting down recruitment offices reduce volunteer enlistment, thus increasing the likelihood of a draft?
No, that describes pretty much the current situation.
Being quite serious here - Is there a need for college students and activists and others who feel passionately that they are excluded from the current political debate to protest something, anything, even a seemingly non-issue?
How could anyone of voting age consider himself or herself excluded from current political debate? This is the most inclusive country in the world and all citizens are a part of the political debate if they get off the couch and go to the polls and vote. If young persons in draft age find themselves vulnerable then they may only blame their extended families because it takes grandparents, parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters and cousins to support a draft so the youth are not under represented.
In my opinion there will be no draft unless China would start a major conflict. Regardless of protest mentioned above countermeasures are already in mind to cause enough citizens to comply to serve. For example an alternative service could be offered to those objecting to direct combat resulting in a no contest situation of duty to country. A simple lottery to cause you to postpone your life or make plans to move to Canada. If a draft were initiated it would be for Homeland Security and would require all eligible citizens, young men and women that have not served in active or reserve military duty to serve a minimum of six years service in support of homeland security. Citizens would line up for a couple years of “active duty” if the choice was prison, six years guarding a nuclear power plant or bridge or volunteering for a three year tour of duty.
The pentagon desires a smaller force with smarter weapons. The last thing they want is to spend $150,000 training a soldier that don’t want to be a soldier to give them a bad conduct discharge for drugs or misconduct, they would rather double the compensation and entitlements for voluntary service first.
The war in Iraq is calming down now that it is clear we will not elect Howard Dean and cut and run so our troop loss is tolerable. We have enough soldiers to fight two consecutive wars and the only problem is overseas rotation to a variety of commitments. Western Europe is optional and troop levels could be drastically reduced since we have ability to rapidly deploy. In times of war many soldiers volunteer for back-to-back tours in Korea, Germany or Bosnia since they have family or simply like the duty at the location or prefer the duty to being deployed to combat. Reserves gain rank and retirement points while on active duty giving them an increased reason to stay on for the retirement or suplemental income if that was the reason for initial enlistment. Short of another major combat action I can see no reason the government would begin a draft since it is much less costly to increase pay and benefits to entice volunteers.
QUOTE(Aquilla)
Well, if Rolling Stone thinks it's going to happen, that's pretty strong evidence it will.
This entire thing is just more proof that the moonbat left in this country is completely devoid of any real ideas on the actual issues facing our nation. So, instead of actually coming up with an idea on those, they instead seek to create an issue that doesn't exist and use it to scare their minions and give them something to worry about and make new signs and march around shouting and calling Republicans names.
This entire thing is just more proof that the moonbat left in this country is completely devoid of any real ideas on the actual issues facing our nation. So, instead of actually coming up with an idea on those, they instead seek to create an issue that doesn't exist and use it to scare their minions and give them something to worry about and make new signs and march around shouting and calling Republicans names.
Do you even bother to read the article, or even the snippet, or do you just read where it came from and ignore it?
McPeak is a former Air Force Chief of Staff and O’Hanlon is a “military manpower scholar” at Brookings. Because they accepted an interview with Rolling Stone doesn’t negate their bona fides. And FYI, Rolling Stone has a fairly long history of investigative reporting.My gosh, how do Republicans make their way in this world with such incredibly thin skin? Every issue that is brought up that is unpleasant to them immediately causes whining about “oh me, poor us, they’re calling us names again. Boo hoo.” And what's really funny is that nowhere in my post did I call the Republicans "names", and yet in the same breath, you call "liberals" names...there's a word for that...
As for "moonbats", the moonbats in office may not call it a draft, they may not want a draft, but mandatory service is in our future if wars continue to be fought.
QUOTE
"Very frankly, in a couple of places our recruiting pool is getting soft," said Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, the Army's personnel chief. "We're hearing things like, 'Well, let's wait and see how this thing settles out in Iraq,' " he said in an interview. "For the active duty for '05 it's going to be tough to meet our goal, but I think we can. I think the telling year for us is going to be '06." CHRISTIAN Science Monitor
(and whaddya know, the Christian Science Monitor references the Rolling Stone article
)In January, a number of “conservatives and moderates” sent a letter to Congress.
QUOTE
In that letter, retired military leaders such as Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey joined with defense analysts such as Michele Flournoy and political commentators such as William Kristol in asking Congress "to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. ... it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active-duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years."
They do not call for a draft but anti-war activists say they see no other certain way to boost military strength.
"The most probable way they will start is to do a selected draft of medical people, those with specialized computer skills, and those with Arabic language skills and let it spread further," Milbury-Steen said. Delaware Online
They do not call for a draft but anti-war activists say they see no other certain way to boost military strength.
"The most probable way they will start is to do a selected draft of medical people, those with specialized computer skills, and those with Arabic language skills and let it spread further," Milbury-Steen said. Delaware Online
QUOTE
The Army expects to miss its recruiting goals this month and next and is working on a revised sales pitch appealing to the patriotism of parents, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey said Wednesday. SF Chronicle
QUOTE
If American forces aren't pulling out of Iraq in a year, a draft will be needed to meet manpower requirements, military analysts warned Wednesday. NDNW
QUOTE
Yet despite denials top to bottom, it appears the government is quietly planning to introduce universal conscription in the not-so-distant future.
According to the Religious News Service, Selective Service officials have been in contact with religious groups as far back as October.
They have been working on the implementation of 'alternative service' plans for conscientious objectors to warfare who might be drafted. Equinox
According to the Religious News Service, Selective Service officials have been in contact with religious groups as far back as October.
They have been working on the implementation of 'alternative service' plans for conscientious objectors to warfare who might be drafted. Equinox
I do hope these sources are more "acceptable", but I will hardly lose any sleep if not.
So quoting No Draft, No Way and a college newspaper that claim the draft is coming back is proof? The quote "military analysts" who, of course, remain anonymous. Real credibility there.
The SF Chronicle says nothing about the draft. As a matter of fact, you left out this snippet:
The draft is not something that can sneak up on the American people. The military has had problems reaching recruitment "goals" for a long time, without a draft being discussed seriously.
Frankly, there is no evidence that a draft is a real possibility: specifically no legislation and no support from the brass. Until one of those change, the draft is a distant possibility.
The SF Chronicle says nothing about the draft. As a matter of fact, you left out this snippet:
QUOTE
Whether that boosts enlistment numbers or not, Harvey said he sees no chance of a military draft.
"The `D' word is the farthest thing from my mind," the former defense company executive told a Pentagon news conference, his first since becoming the Army's top civilian official last November.
Because of the military manpower strains caused by simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, some in Congress have raised the possibility of re-instituting the draft, although there is a strong consensus against it among Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the military chiefs.
"The `D' word is the farthest thing from my mind," the former defense company executive told a Pentagon news conference, his first since becoming the Army's top civilian official last November.
Because of the military manpower strains caused by simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, some in Congress have raised the possibility of re-instituting the draft, although there is a strong consensus against it among Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the military chiefs.
The draft is not something that can sneak up on the American people. The military has had problems reaching recruitment "goals" for a long time, without a draft being discussed seriously.
Frankly, there is no evidence that a draft is a real possibility: specifically no legislation and no support from the brass. Until one of those change, the draft is a distant possibility.
QUOTE(Amlord)
So quoting No Draft, No Way and a college newspaper that claim the draft is coming back is proof? The quote "military analysts" who, of course, remain anonymous. Real credibility there.
Like I said: QUOTE(DaffyGrl)
I do hope these sources are more "acceptable", but I will hardly lose any sleep if not.
QUOTE
While conceding that the Army, Marines, National Guard and Army Reserve face recruitment difficulties, military officials have denied any plans to revive the draft, which was replaced by an all-volunteer force in 1973.
“The ‘D-word’ is the farthest thing from my thoughts,” Army Secretary Francis Harvey said last week. He said the all-volunteer force has proven its value and applauded the performance of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, the analysts said the all-volunteer army is on the verge of “breaking.” The 3rd Infantry Division based in Fort Stewart, Ga., and the 4th Infantry Division based in Fort Hood, Texas, are among the units that are going back for a second tour in Iraq. The State
“The ‘D-word’ is the farthest thing from my thoughts,” Army Secretary Francis Harvey said last week. He said the all-volunteer force has proven its value and applauded the performance of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, the analysts said the all-volunteer army is on the verge of “breaking.” The 3rd Infantry Division based in Fort Stewart, Ga., and the 4th Infantry Division based in Fort Hood, Texas, are among the units that are going back for a second tour in Iraq. The State
QUOTE
Lawrence Korb, assistant defense secretary under President Ronald Reagan, supports the all-volunteer military. But he said the Bush administration is severely straining the military and faces a deadline.
"You've got about another year,'' said Korb, who is now an analyst at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. "If you don't cut back in Iraq, your all-volunteer Army and Marine Corps are going to be in big trouble.'' SF Chronicle
"You've got about another year,'' said Korb, who is now an analyst at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. "If you don't cut back in Iraq, your all-volunteer Army and Marine Corps are going to be in big trouble.'' SF Chronicle
When all else fails, get ‘em young:
QUOTE
Saturday morning, as the weekend's rainstorm was just beginning, U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Daniel W. Johnson, station commander of the army Recruiting Station here spoke to a class of middle-school students at the Operation Unite Career and Activities Day at the Hudson Middle School. Zwire
QUOTE(Amlord @ Apr 5 2005, 07:15 AM)
So quoting No Draft, No Way and a college newspaper that claim the draft is coming back is proof? The quote "military analysts" who, of course, remain anonymous. Real credibility there.
Well, this whole "No Draft, No Way" group doesn't strike me as something really worthy of debating. However, having an honest discussion about the following does strike me as important:
1) Our manpower shortages, current and projected
2) Our administration's hard stance against a draft
3) The likelihood of our administration getting in another conflict
4) What we are going to do about it
I don't particularly like the way this debate was phrased or the premise behind it, but if we actually do want to have a real conversation about this, perhaps a new topic is appropriate. We will have to eventually face up to the realities of our foreign policy sooner or later. You can't trot around the globe fighting terror and bringing democracy to the people using the reserves. The fact that politicians from both sides of the aisle as well as numerous current and ex-military folks are saying that should clue you in. I wouldn't in any way say that a draft is imminent as this group suggests, but I think it is more of a possibility than a lot of folks would like to entertain, especially if certain events come to pass.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Apr 4 2005, 09:04 PM)
That's not likely. Here's what Selective Service says on its website as of June 14 (emphasis added):
Nothing like up to date information. June 14th by my reckoning is almost 10 months ago and surely you would agree the situation has worsen since then. The good news is the Bush supporters, even some on this board, realize we have a “situation” and I personally think it will get worse when it comes time for National Guardsmen and regulars to re-up.
Most agree there is a problem and it’s evident from others posts that many in DC are looking for creative solutions. So just because it’s not on the web site or there’s no current pending legislation doesn’t mean it’s not being discussed in the corridors of DC and anyone would be naïve to think so. It’s just a political land mine and those in power are trying to tread lightly.
Late yesterday I had a discussion with an ex-military coworker who serves on several civil preparedness boards for the state. He thought the SSS exercise was an annual practice, I haven’t been able to confirm or deny this but will hopefully find the answer.
QUOTE(Amlord)
As with any market, the military must offer a pay at which people are willing to work versus other alternatives. In this case, the military will simply raise the GI bill or recruitment bonuses or other incentives to increase recruitment.
Simply raise the GI Bill or recruitment bonuses? And just how are we going to pay for this? Extend our debt? From the fiscally responsible party? This sounds like an old Democrat response: just throw more money at it instead of addressing the solution. Same shoes, different feet. You just think your feet don’t smell.
And never mind that record debt.
QUOTE(Ole Sarge)
The pentagon desires a smaller force with smarter weapons.
Pure lip service. Smart bombs can’t over run strong holds, they can’t hold a perimeter or maintain check points. If I heard it once I’ve heard it a thousand times from the military experts: nothing has changed over the thousands of years in military history, you have to have ground troops in order to win a war. And I completely agree.
All you have to do is look at the current situation. We easily “won the war” with our technology. The hard part, when most of the casualties occurred, came afterwards when manpower, not chip technology, was needed.
QUOTE(Aquilla)
So, instead of actually coming up with an idea on those, they instead seek to create an issue that doesn't exist and use it to scare their minions and give them something to worry about and make new signs and march around shouting and calling Republicans names.
You mean like the reasoning/scare tactics and lack of ideas used by the Republicans for the Iraq war. Here’s a little reminder from YOUR president in a State of the Union address as he was drumming up support for the Iraq war:
QUOTE(Dubya)
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained.
Shameless, shameless, shameless. Your GOP bunch: The Kings of making false assumptions to scare the rest of us.
QUOTE(Fife and Drum @ Apr 5 2005, 12:48 PM)
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Apr 4 2005, 09:04 PM)
That's not likely. Here's what Selective Service says on its website as of June 14 (emphasis added):
Nothing like up to date information. June 14th by my reckoning is almost 10 months ago and surely you would agree the situation has worsen since then. The good news is the Bush supporters, even some on this board, realize we have a “situation” and I personally think it will get worse when it comes time for National Guardsmen and regulars to re-up.
Most agree there is a problem and it’s evident from others posts that many in DC are looking for creative solutions. So just because it’s not on the web site or there’s no current pending legislation doesn’t mean it’s not being discussed in the corridors of DC and anyone would be naïve to think so. It’s just a political land mine and those in power are trying to tread lightly.
Actually, I would say that the situation has steadily improved since 14 June. Not by leaps and bounds, and not so the lamestream media would take notice, but a slow steady overall change. Our Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTP's) continue to improve, due to the studying of lessons learned and implementing new doctrine and equipment; The Iraqi Security Forces continue to take a more active role in fighting the insurgents......and even Sunni Clerics are encouraging Iraqi's to join that force:
QUOTE
Influential Sunni Muslim clerics who once condemned Iraqi security force members as traitors made a surprise turnaround Friday and encouraged citizens to join the nascent police and army.
If heeded, the announcement could strengthen the image of the officers and soldiers trying to take over the fight against the Sunni-led insurgency.
If heeded, the announcement could strengthen the image of the officers and soldiers trying to take over the fight against the Sunni-led insurgency.
Link
I also don't expect the low recruiting numbers to get much worse, when you stated I personally think it will get worse when it comes time for National Guardsmen and regulars to re-up. .....they have been re-enlisting or not re-enlisting for the entire duration of the war on terror, there is no magic time for this to happen across the board.
The Army also recognizes that the last few months are traditionally poor for recruitment, but they are considering one option that will definitely enhance retention rates:
QUOTE
The Army is considering cutting the length of deployments in Iraq from more than 12 months to as low as six months if conditions allow, a top official said Thursday.
Decreasing the tour length of soldiers from about 15 months -- 12 months "boots on the ground" in Iraq plus time on either end for training and reorganizing at home base, would improve morale, help families and help attract new recruits, said Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, the Army deputy chief of staff for personnel.
Decreasing the tour length of soldiers from about 15 months -- 12 months "boots on the ground" in Iraq plus time on either end for training and reorganizing at home base, would improve morale, help families and help attract new recruits, said Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, the Army deputy chief of staff for personnel.
Link
I can speak with experience that this will indeed help. Private Snuffy doesn't mind being deployed to a combat theater, but 12 months at a shot wears down morale.
I am still of the mind that the situation will continue to improve, recruiting and retention numbers will increase, and there will be no need for a draft, so much so that I see no signs whatsoever of an impending draft.
BTW, smarter weapons (as Ol Sarge mentioned) doesn't automatically translate to 'smart bombs'. As part of the Army's transformation, we are using more digital and networking technology down to the common infantryman, than I could have ever imagined when I enlisted in 1985. The Pentagon desires a leaner, smarter force. And though I still have some issues with the Army, we are definitely headed in that direction.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Apr 4 2005, 09:04 PM)
QUOTE(Fife and Drum @ Apr 4 2005, 12:35 PM)
Is there a real chance that a military draft is coming in 2005? Other than the now-defeated H.R. 163, is there any pending legislation to re-instate the draft?
Coupled with National Guard units seeing a drop in recruits it will probably happen sooner than later. I’m not aware of any pending legislation but it appears the wheels are in motion:
QUOTE
There are already signs that the Selective Service System (SSS), as it is known, is gearing up for business. By March 31, the SSS boards in every state must certify to Washington that they are ready to induct the first young men within 75 days.
This group hasn’t effectively worked in over 30 years so any activity could be a sign of the impending draft.
A couple of things wrong with your link. According to FactCheck.org:
QUOTE
Let's start with a few essential facts. Military conscription ended in the US in 1973. Males aged 18 through 25 still are required to register with the Selective Service System, but it would take an act of Congress to resume actual conscription into military service.
That's not likely. Here's what Selective Service says on its website as of June 14 (emphasis added):
Selective Service System: Notwithstanding recent stories . . . on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft.
An e-mail ominously states that "the Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions." But it turns out that's nothing new: the Selective Service has been trying to fill vacancies on local boards for several years, and the Selective Service isn't part of the Pentagon anyway -- it's an independent agency.
That's not likely. Here's what Selective Service says on its website as of June 14 (emphasis added):
Selective Service System: Notwithstanding recent stories . . . on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft.
An e-mail ominously states that "the Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions." But it turns out that's nothing new: the Selective Service has been trying to fill vacancies on local boards for several years, and the Selective Service isn't part of the Pentagon anyway -- it's an independent agency.
Your link goes on to cite statistics about minorities being overrepresented in number of deaths in Iraq, also false:
QUOTE
It is wrong to say that minorities are disproportionately bearing the burden. Whites are indeed slightly under-represented in today's active-duty military as a whole: They make up 64.2 percent of the force, compared with 69.1 percent of the U.S. population. (The reserve components are somewhat whiter.) But whites are slightly over-represented among the dead, at 70.9 percent.
Conversely, African-Americans are notably over-represented in the military as a whole. They make up 19.1 percent of the active-duty force, and a staggering 24 percent of the Army, as opposed to just 12.1 percent of the population. But blacks are not significantly over-represented among the dead of this global war: They make up only 12.4 percent.
The reason for this discrepancy, say experts, is that although blacks sign up in greater numbers, they cluster pragmatically in noncombat units whose training in mechanics, electronics, and logistics translates well into civilian careers upon leaving uniform. "The proportion of blacks to whites is very much smaller in the combat arms than in other branches," said retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, former commandant of the Army War College and a noted author. He added that Special Forces and aviation units have the smallest percentage of minorities of all segments of the military.
Conversely, African-Americans are notably over-represented in the military as a whole. They make up 19.1 percent of the active-duty force, and a staggering 24 percent of the Army, as opposed to just 12.1 percent of the population. But blacks are not significantly over-represented among the dead of this global war: They make up only 12.4 percent.
The reason for this discrepancy, say experts, is that although blacks sign up in greater numbers, they cluster pragmatically in noncombat units whose training in mechanics, electronics, and logistics translates well into civilian careers upon leaving uniform. "The proportion of blacks to whites is very much smaller in the combat arms than in other branches," said retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, former commandant of the Army War College and a noted author. He added that Special Forces and aviation units have the smallest percentage of minorities of all segments of the military.
Link
I believe much of the talk of a draft is being manufactured by the left, in order to discredit the Bush administration. You simply can't cite any concrete evidence that a draft is imminent, or even a consideration. The only proposals put forth by congress have been by Democrats. The military doesn't want a draft, the administration doesn't want a draft, congress (possibly minus a couple of Dems) doesn't want a draft....and the American people don't want a draft. It seems that when a party stops being for something, they are only left with being against anything.
The Department of Defense has already stated that troop levels are falling in Iraq and will likely continue to do so, down to around 100,000 by FY 2006. Not a compelling argument for a draft.
The depiction of military recruiters, while built on some seeds of truth, has been overblown out of proportion just as the average civilians depiction of a soldier itself. The 'tactics' used by the vast majority are no different than those used by corporate recruiters in trying to hire quality, fit men and women. Though dismissed by the uninformed as used car salesmen, there are enough checks and balances built into the system, that as long as the recruit reads and understands the contract, they have nobody to blame if they fail to appreciate the environment that they find themselves in.
A minor rant if I may.........I understand that it's part of modern vernacular to label the US Infantryman as a 'grunt' (tho most don't know what that really means), I do take offense to being labeled as 'cannon fodder'. Nobody's life is expendable, disposable or sacrificed needlessly. I, as a 'grunt' am apt to be more technologically savvy, street smart and creative than many will ever appreciate. I, as 'cannon fodder' am apt to be responsible for weapons, vehicles and equipment worth more than most will make in ten years, not to mention the health, morale, training and need I say........ lives, than you may even be able to conceive.
So please people, lend a little reverence when you bandy about the terms cannon fodder and grunt......we're likely to be more than meets the eye, especially if you've received your military experience from Hollywood.
As I'm certain you've pointed out before, there is a big difference between a conscript and a willing volunteer, hence, I tend to use the term cannon fodder selectively, myself. They would certainly find me apt to be cannon fodder, or to turn the people next to me into cannon fodder, as I would be unmotivated at best and hostile at worst.
As for the liklihood of a draft: It's better to resist now, to plan for resistance now, and to make known the intention to resist now, and then to feel a bit sheepish if we are wrong, than to wait until it happens and then resist.
I find it quite telling that, in a recent article, a former Army police specialist brought up a WWI era free-speech case that had to do with draft resistance. Did Mr. Iaberone rattle the case off without much thought, or is this a carefully-chosen example of a time when it's "okay" to violate the rights of Americans?
"lI know people disagree with what she (Malkin) says, but we live in a different time,' Iaberone said. 'When it comes to national security, like in Schenk v. The United States, certain individual rights are not afforded to people.'"
It is perfectly legal to protest the draft and to encourage resistance...until the draft actually starts. Then it may well be illegal, and therefore more difficult to effectively resist.
As for whether or not I think a draft will start: I do. The proxy oil wars with China (and likely Russia and India), aren't going to end anytime soon. And some of the ones quietly agitating for a draft are the democrats:
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=45000...ontentid=253152
"Our party should champion a stronger U.S. military by pressing for an increase in the active duty strength of the Army and the Marine Corps, for a better mix of active and reserve forces, and for more specialists trained in the stabilization and post-conflict reconstruction operations of the 21st century."
What, they think recruits are going to appear out of thin air? Remember Kerry's national service for college plan? Well now there are pundits saying no one should be able to get college grants and loans unless they serve. Nice way to keep the rich kids safe, isn't it?
http://www.ppionline.org/documents/NSS_0703.pdf
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=586113&C=landwar
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/07/...ain665485.shtml
And here is one that took some digging to find (and then to find again!)
http://www.brethren.org/genbd/newsline/2004/dec3104.htm#2
"The council understood from the background material given that Selective Service, or the Bush administration, have no plans in the offing to institute a new draft," Swartz reported. "There have been discussions during the past two presidential administrations of the eventual possibility of some kind of general national service. Selective Service officials explained to General Board staff that they want alternative service opportunities to be in place if and when such a program would be launched."
They're just talking up alternative service sources because what, they're bored? Nothing better to do? Maybe that's what Selective Service people do when they're bored, just to feel useful!
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.