A National Draft in the Future?
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 09-21-2004 - 12:19pm |
Published on Sep 20, 2004, 07:08 A key issue for young Americans and their families to consider as they prepare to cast their votes in the upcoming presidential election is the real likelihood of a military draft being reinstated if President Bush is re-elected. President Bush should tell us now whether he supports a military draft.
Here is the evidence that makes a draft likely:
The U.S. Army has acknowledged that they are stretched thin and that finding new recruits is challenging. They recently placed 300 new recruiters in the field. Bonuses for new recruits to the Army have risen by 67 percent to a maximum of $10,000 and $15,000 for hard-to-fill specialties.
The extended tours of duty have made service less attractive for both the regular armed forces, and particularly for the National Guard and Reserves. To meet this year's quota for enlistees, the Army has sped up the induction of "delayed entry" recruits, meaning they are already borrowing from next year's quotas in order to meet this year's numbers.
Reservists are now being called away for longer periods. In 2003, President Bush dramatically extended the length of time for the Guard and Reserves deployment in Iraq. Extended tours of up to a year have become common.
In a further sign of a lack of adequate staffing, the armed forces are now in the process of calling up members of the Individual Ready Reserves. These are often older reservists usually waiting retirement. They are typically in their mid-to-late forties, and have not been on active duty and have not trained for some time. Traditionally, they are only supposed to be called up during a time of national emergency. In 2001, President Bush authorized their call up but never rescinded this order even after he declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq in May of 2003.
The Armed Forces are already chronically understaffed. In 2003, General Eric Shinseki testified before Congress that an additional 50,000 troops would be needed beyond what the Bush administration said would be necessary to stabilize Iraq after the invasion. The President ignored him. We do not have enough troops in Afghanistan to be able to stabilize the country, as shown by the continual putting off of elections well past their announced date. In an effort to free up yet more troops in the coming years, we are moving troops away from the Demilitarized Zone in Korea and reducing the number of troops on the Korean Peninsula at a time when North Korea poses more of a danger to the U.S. - not less. Because of the President's military adventurism, our Armed Forces are under enormous pressure. The only place to go for more troops is a draft.
Selective service boards have already been notified that 20-year-olds and medical personnel will be called up first.
President Bush will be forced to decide whether we can continue the current course in Iraq, which will clearly require the reinstatement of the draft. The Pentagon has objected to a draft but, the President has ignored other Pentagon recommendations in the past.
American families and young people are owed an explanation about the President's plans. Will the President withdraw from some of our military commitments or will he reinstate the draft? We need to know that before we vote, not afterwards.

Pages
To the contrary. I’m still open minded as I hope are the people responsible for investigating Bush’s intelligence failure regarding Iraq’s weapons capabilities and the rush to invade.
>>And if such intelligence existed,, where is it now? Why has every investigation into the matter concluded that Bush and Blair were telling what they believed to be the truth at the time?<<
Like I said March 5th is when Bush ordered the report due. Unfortunately we’ll both have to wait until then to hear the conclusions.
>>But like I said, if the draft is needed to defend the country against terrorism, than it is needed, and it won't matter who is president. Do you think if John Kerry gets elected Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are going to evaporate off the face of the earth? Are you prepared to lose this fight and have terrorists go on using their vile tactics to advance their aims? Have you seen any of the beheading videos? Are you prepared to surrender to animals like this and say, "We don't want the casualties. You win"?<<
Again you are pushing the notion that the fight against terrorism and Bush’s invasion of Iraq are one and the same thing.
They are not except in the minds of Bush and the supporters of his invasion of Iraq.
Al quada hated Saddam and considered him an infidel, like George Bush.
This has turned from a preemptive strike to remove weapons to a liberation from the grips of a dictator who was essentially toothless and contained.
Bush’s occupation is making the security situation of the US worse. $ 4 billion is being poured into Iraq each month. Meanwhile in America ports remain under secured, NYC first responders still don’t have the 25 million promised to update communications equipment so different services can coordinate responses, etc.
The chaos is breeding more resentment in the Arab world and creating further recruits for al quada.
# John Kerry has a four-point plan to fix our Iraq policy:
* "First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone. It is late; the president must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support. The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process."
* "Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces. The president should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers."
* "Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people. One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we're paying the price. Now, the president should look at the whole reconstruction package, draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects, and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort."
"Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year. If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces, train the Iraqis to provide their own security, develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year -- we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years."
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elpoliticsto&msg=4203.1
They are not except in the minds of Bush and the supporters of his invasion of Iraq.
Al quada hated Saddam and considered him an infidel, like George Bush.>
The war in Iraq is one aspect of the war on terror IMO, for a variety of reasons that have been gone over here ad nauseum so i won't go into it again. But the bottom line is, whether you agree with us being in Iraq or not, we are there now, and Kerry has no plans to change that (nor should he-it is absolutely crucial that Iraq be stabilized for the war on terror and the security of the region). Therefore whether he or George Bush gets elected, unless we plan on surrendering to Islamic terrorists, there is a possibility that mandatory military service will be needed. No one can (honestly) rule it out completely.
From the US Department of State website on contributions in Afghanistan -
I just pulled out those of France and Germany:
http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/14627.htm
Germany:
For the first time in more than fifty years, deployed combat ships and maritime aircraft for operations outside Europe.
Lead country in establishing and training the Afghan police force; Special Operations forces presently are conducting missions in Afghanistan.
German-led contingent of 1,300 soldiers (including 200 Dutch personnel) commands Multi-National Brigade with responsibility for Kabul.
France:
Deployed an infantry company to Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan to provide area security.
Provided France's only carrier battle group to support combat operations in the North Arabian Sea.
Provided humanitarian assistance, and national and coalition airlift support in Dushanbe, Tajikistan.
Deployed marines, army mountain forces, land-based strike aircraft, and a carrier battle group to assist OEF; after the U.S., in 2002,
France has been the single largest military contributor.
--------------------
As for the first Gulf War, France was the single largest contributor after the US. Unfortunately, I must run off to a meeting I don't have time to find the link for that one but I've read it on numerous occasions from very reliable sources.
<>
France has the third largest military on the world. They would be a country that one would want to have on your side. As we can see, up until recently with the Iraq fiasco, that was the case.
Edited 9/22/2004 5:06 pm ET ET by suemox
No one wants a draft. Too easy to pick up sabateurs a la Vietnam.
Good point. Another
Renee ~~~
I just LOVE sanctimonious, hypocritical right wing double standards.....
Tuesday, September 7, 2004 Posted: 9:09 PM EDT (0109 GMT)
DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- A November win by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry would put the United States at risk of another "devastating" terrorist attack, Vice President Dick Cheney told supporters Tuesday.
Yep. Those nasty dems have a lock on scare tactics this year.
Unbelievable.
No, it's not, it's the right wing.
dablacksox
Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.
Claim: The U.S. military will be reinstating the draft by Spring 2005.
Well, that's interesting. Even more so given I never claimed that the military will be reinstating the draft by spring of 2005.
"Since a reimposition of conscription would require Congressional approval, which has not yet been given, it is unlikely that a draft (even if approved by Congress) would be underway as early as Spring 2005: "
Given the fact that even with a Kerry win Congress most likely will remain Republican, a draft under Kerry is definately unlikely.
dablacksox
Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.
The draft scare and the "{Insert Republican candidate's name} won't let me do with my body what I want to" everytime a Republican candidate is heading for the White House seem to be the most commonly regurgitated complaints.
Sanctimonious, intolerant. You pretty much have the terminology down. Unfortunately, they apply to Democrats about this silly draft scare.
http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr163.html -- bill introduced by McDermott, DEMOCRAT 2003.
Nice try.
Pages