A National Draft in the Future?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
A National Draft in the Future?
62
Tue, 09-21-2004 - 12:19pm
Hidden Agenda: A National Draft in the Future?

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 In 2001, President Bush authorized their call up but never rescinded this order even after he declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq in May of 2003.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.

dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 9:29pm


Why is it any more unlikely under Kerry? How does Kerry plan to reduce our troop needs? I ask again, do you really think that France, Germany and Russia, even factoring in their worship and admiration for John Kerry(?), are going to deploy significant troops to Iraq? Or is Kerry just planning on cutting and running?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 10:43pm
"If you care, you'll find that Urban legend reports are usually pretty close to what's been circulating around. Just because you never threw around a Spring 2005 date doesn't mean your chicken little report of a coming draft is "true"."

Let's see-I post articles stating that the draft is a possiblity under a second Bush administration. You try to pretend I said it would happen in the spring of 2005 and rebut that.

You got the "idiot" portion of your moniker correct.

"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. "

Nice straw man. You continue to live up to your moniker.


"Sanctimonious, intolerant. You pretty much have the terminology down. Unfortunately, they apply to Democrats about this silly draft scare."


And you neatly duck the article I posted that backs my description of the right wing. Nice work, "idiot" You chose your name well.





dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
Thu, 09-23-2004 - 10:54pm
THE BACK-DOOR DRAFT IS RUNNING ON EMPTY Expect the regular draft to come to a draft board near you soon.

US may run out of guard and reserve troops for war on terrorism: report

Wed Sep 15, 4:14 PM ET



WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US military may run out of national guard and reserve troops for the war on terrorism because of existing limits on involuntary mobilizations, a congressional watchdog agency warned in a report.



Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the government has considered changing the policy to make members of the 1.2 million-strong guard and reserve subject to repeated involuntary mobilization so long as no single mobilization exceeds 24 consecutive months.

In commenting on the report, however, the Department of Defense (news - web sites) (DOD) said it planned to keep its current approach.

"Under DOD's current implementation of the authority, reserve component members can be involuntarily mobilized more than once, but involuntary mobilizations are limited to a cumulative total of 24 months," the report said.

"If DOD's implementation of the partial mobilization authority restricts the cumulative time that reserve component forces can be mobilized, then it is possible that DOD will run out of forces," the report said.

The guard and reserves are crucial to the US war effort because they include specialized units such as military police, intelligence and civil affairs that are in high demand but short supply in the active duty force.

The Pentagon (news - web sites) also has turned to guard and reserve to ease the strain on active duty infantry divisions that have had to deploy repeatedly to Iraq (news - web sites).

More than 47,600 members of the guard and reserve were serving in Iraq as of August 1, about a third of the 140,000-member US force there. When those who are deployed in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and rear areas are added, the total is in excess of 66,000, according to Pentagon figures.

Since September 11, 2003, more than 335,000 guard and reserves have been involuntarily mobilized for active duty -- 234,000 from the army alone, according to the report.

"The Department of Defense cannot currently meet its global commitments without sizeable participation from its national guard and reserve members," the GAO said in a cover letter to the report.

The GAO said the Pentagon has projected it will continuously have about 100,000 to 150,000 reserve members mobilized over the next three to five years.

The Pentagon considered increasing the pool of available guard and reserve troops by changing its mobilization policy.

"Under such a revised implementation, DOD could have mobilized its reserve component forces for less than 24 consecutive months, sent them home for an unspecified period and then remobilized them, repeating this cycle indefinitely and providing an essentially unlimited flow of forces," the report said.

Piecemeal policy changes already undertaken to increase the pool of available guard and reserve troops have created uncertainties among reservists that could affect retention, recruitment and the long-term viability of the reserves, the report noted.

"There are already indications that some portions of the force are being stressed," it said.

The army national guard, for instance, has failed to meet recruiting goals in 14 of 20 months from October 2002 through May 2004, the report said. It was 7,800 soldiers below its recruiting goal at the end of fiscal 2003.

dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-20-2004
Fri, 09-24-2004 - 2:52pm
Still a scare tactic perpetrated by DEMOCRATS:



Kerry claims Bush might reinstate draft: Kerry, in a fit of desperation, is making an effort to scare Draft age voters. Kerry's campaign trail comments on the draft are coordinated with (1) the introduction of HR 163 by cynical Democrats like Charles Rangel, and (2) the sending of an email by Democrats to draft age men and women, especially those in the college system.



PoliticalVanguard.com Publisher Thomas Del Beccaro is particpating in a debate in October at St. Mary's College in Moraga. The first issue listed on the agenda of debate topics is the Draft. Why? Perhaps the following Email recently sent to College students played role:



"Mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages18-26) starting June 15, 2005

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate, S89 and HR 163,to reinstate mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages18-26) starting June 15, 2005. This plan includes women in the draft, eliminates higher education as a shelter, and makes it difficult to cross into Canada.


The Bush administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections. The Bush administration plans to begin mandatory draft in the spring of 2005, just after the 2004 presidential election.


The Congress has added $28 million to the 2004 selective service system budget to prepare for this military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005.


Bush has ordered the Selective Service to report to him by March 31, 2005 on their readiness to implement the draft by June 2005




The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.

The email obviously fails to reference that HR 163 was introduced by Democrats such as Charlie Rangel and John Conyers. Republicans are not behind nor do they support the draft leglislation.

*******

This tactic is having an impact. College students are worried and making inquiries. If effectively countered, this could turn a generation of voters away from the Democrats. PV reccomends that you fight this latest tactic by letting everyone you know that this represents the latest round in the MediScare, Social Security Scare tactics by the Dems.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
Sat, 09-25-2004 - 12:02am
"Still a scare tactic perpetrated by DEMOCRATS:"

Well, now see, you are correct. Republicans would NEVER stoop to something like scare tactics.

For example, in 2000, the Republicans told me if I voted for Al Gore....

* I would lose my job.

* The stock market would tank.

* This country would have no respect abroad.

* Poverty would increase.

* Terrorists would attack this country.

* The number of poor people would increase.

* We would become involved in useless wars.

* The country would hemorage jobs.

* More people would lack health insurance.

Well, darned if this sure WASN'T a scare tactic on the part of the Republicans. Because I DID vote for Al Gore, and I'll be damned if all those things didn't happen, just like the Republicans said they would.

dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-11-2004
Sat, 09-25-2004 - 2:03am
President Bush never lied. This is typical Democratic strategy. Twist the facts around to suit your own purpose. There will not be a draft. I don't know where you get your information maybe CBS?
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
Sat, 09-25-2004 - 2:40pm
Panel Calls U.S. Troop Size Insufficient for Demands By THOM SHANKER

Published: September 24, 2004

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 - A Pentagon-appointed panel of outside experts has concluded in a new study that the American military does not have sufficient forces to sustain current and anticipated stability operations, like the festering conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and other missions that might arise.

Portions of the study, which has not been officially released, were read into the public record on Thursday by Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a leader of Democrats who want to expand the size of the military. During testimony by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his top commanders, Senator Reed said he found the study "provocative and startling."

Mr. Rumsfeld said the report was an "excellent piece of work," and that he had ordered briefings on its findings for senior military and civilian officials. more-> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/24/politics/24military.html

dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

Avatar for car_al
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 09-25-2004 - 3:58pm
_ C.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 09-27-2004 - 2:04am

Still no response to this from the fear-mongering OP-dablacksox eh?.......so I'll bump your question back

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-20-2004
Mon, 09-27-2004 - 1:19pm
<"Still a scare tactic perpetrated by DEMOCRATS:"

Well, now see, you are correct. Republicans would NEVER stoop to something like scare tactics.

For example, in 2000, the Republicans told me if I voted for Al Gore....

* I would lose my job.........>

*****************************************

Well, let's see...

You post some tripe that if Bush is re-elected then he will re-instate the draft.

I rebut, proving that it's a DEMOCRAT bill for election year scare tactics.

Your response is basically, Republicans use scare tactics all the time.

Do you really think that your response proves that Bush is going to re-instate the draft?

Pages