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 In 2001, President Bush authorized their call up but never rescinded this order even after he declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq in May of 2003.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
*******************************
Read it and cheer for YOUR party!
Dems to revive draft demand
Rep. Rangel and Sen. Hollings see new mood on Iraq
By Alexander Bolton
Key Democrats in the House and Senate will renew calls for the military draft as part of a critical barrage they are preparing to launch against President Bush over the length of troop deployments and the heavy reliance on reservists in Iraq.
Military experts outside Congress say there is a political advantage to be gained by Democrats who want to make the president squirm at a time a growing frustration among military families and other Americans over the occupation.
But they also say that there are legitimate policy grounds for re-instituting the draft, which was phased out after the Vietnam war.
patrick g. ryan
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) is a critic of troop deployment in Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leading Democratic critics of the structure of troop deployment in the Middle East — proponents of a universal military draft — are Rep. Charles Rangel (N.Y.) and Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.), the top Democrats on the House Ways and Means and Senate Commerce Committees, respectively.
Rangel has instructed his staff to conduct an in-depth review of the make-up of National Guard and armed services reserve units.
“My staff is researching now the number of people killed in action and wounded in action and where did they come from,” said Rangel. “It’s a profile of who are the National Guard people and what are their backgrounds and how fragile are their economic backgrounds.
“Are they people who thought they’d be spending a year in the combat area where they are fish in a barrel and there is no game plan at all?,” he asked rhetorically.
Such information could serve as a pillar for future Democratic attacks on the administration’s handling of reconstruction efforts, which have become more frequent and intense since Congress authorized the use of force last fall.
Rangel said many people had joined the National Guard for economic incentives, or to feel patriotic and march in Memorial Day parades, or to respond to floods or other emergencies but not to spend a year in Iraq.
Rangel said he wants to show the public that Americans being killed and wounded in Iraq are not unknown people or solely professional warriors, but ordinary citizens.
Hollings declared that if that Rangel renews a push for the draft, “I’ll join him.”
In January, Rangel and Hollings introduced H.R. 163 in the House and S. 89 in the Senate, respectively. The legislation would re-institute a draft to compulsory military or alternative national service for men and women between the ages of 18 and 26 who are U.S. citizens or residents.
“I think it’s a combination of political move and more positively a wish to restore the concept of giving back to the community or serving the nation,” said Marcus Corbin, a senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information.
However, Corbin questioned the timing of renewed discussion of the draft, saying: “I don’t see it as something viable politically. Right now the feeling of not wanting troops in Iraq is as strong as it’s ever been with all the reserve mobilization. There seems to be growing resistance to the operation in Iraq.”
The issue could be more politically potent now, because in the intervening months since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime, large numbers of U.S. troops and reservists have been needed in Iraq to quell terrorism and maintain order.
Adding to difficulties for the administration, foreign allies have refused to contribute a meaningful number of soldiers to share the peacekeeping duties, as U.S. strategists anticipated at the start of the war.
As a result, tours of duty for American soldiers have been extended beyond expectations and reservists have spent more time in combat conditions then they or their families had anticipated.
Even top Republicans in Congress have grown critical of the Pentagon’s troop deployments.
Last week, House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) called for a full review of the structure of U.S. armed forces. He expressed concern about the frequent use of the National Guard and Reserves.
“Brave Americans join the Guard and Reserves to make their skills available to our nation during times of crisis or particular need — not because they want to serve in the permanent forces,” he said. However, a spokeswoman for Blunt said he supports an all-volunteer force and would not support a draft.
Blunt’s disgruntlement shows that dissatisfaction with the heavy reliance on reserves is becoming a bipartisan issue that is gaining political traction, which could give Democrats an electoral weapon they are clearly ready to use.
Rangel said Republican lawmakers have privately expressed support for a draft but would not advocate it now because of fear of undermining the president.
“You see the problems they’re having in finding replacements for the troops that are over there,” said Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
“We can’t sustain a one front war for any length of time.,” said Murtha, who supports a draft but is not sure the time is ripe for its reintroduction. “You can make the deployment but you can’t sustain it because we have so many worldwide commitments, so I’m for the draft.
“There’s 128,000 over there right now. To sustain 128,000 American troops have more National Guard and reserve troops than regular.”
He added, “I don’t think we can afford that. I’m talking about the complaints I’m getting right now from all reserves and guards about their lives being so disrupted. I’m getting major complaints from almost every major unit.”
Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said he does not think the Democrats’ support for the draft was politically motivated.
“I would acknowledge that there is a big problem with reserve operational tempo,” he said. “I do share the worries that motivate the congressmen about the draft.”
However, O’Hanlon and Corbin questioned the accuracy of Murtha’s estimate that it would require a force of 50 percent reserves to sustain the occupation in Iraq.
Jonathan Kaplan contributed to this report.
http://www.hillnews.com/news/100703/draft.aspx
*********************
It's the Democrat Party who want to institute the draft. Meanwhile, they all blame President Bush.
I rebut, proving that it's a DEMOCRAT bill for election year scare tactics."
So you rebutted my contention that Bush will reinstate the draft by pointing to a bill that 2 democrats introduced?
You certainly chose your handle 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.
While President Bush has thus far never said whether or not he would bring back the draft (Sen. John Kerry stated that he opposed a draft on Sept. 22, 2004 in West Palm Beach, Fla.), there are increasing rumors and speculation that it will be reinstated after the election, perhaps as soon as 2005. There is no hard evidence that this is so nor that it is imminent, but lots of people on both sides of the political aisle are rightly concerned.
Obviously, Iraq has not been a "cakewalk" as was widely trumpeted by its neocon promoters in the months leading up to the American invasion. And if, as Donald Rumsfeld once said, Iraq turns out to be "a long hard slog" (it has), who then will be called on to do the slogging?
It is fair to ask how many wars our imperial nation can fight with its hard-pressed volunteer forces, many of whom are now forbidden to leave when their enlistments run out. Or, when they are finally released, how many will re-enlist. The National Guard, for example, failed to meet this year's quota of 58,000, recruiting 5,000 less people. A more pressing question is, how many Americans will be forced to fight, perhaps die for the crazed imperial dreams concocted by a small clique of extremely influential and well-funded neoconservatives, virtually none of whom ever bothered to serve in the military they so profess to love? And among Americans (the late Neil Postman once described them as "amusing themselves to death"), unless their immediate family members are in the military, how many Americans will care if a draft is reinstated and more GIs must die fighting Iraqis and Iranians who have never attacked us?
And even more ominously: There is increasing chatter in Washington among neoconservatives and their pet columnists of ever more wars ahead. They call it spreading their version of democracy; I call it aggressive and unjustifiable wars. Israel, America's client state, is now hinting at an attack on Iran while neocons here are suggesting that America's next target should be Iran. Unanswered is what happens if Iran strikes back at Israel and U.S. forces in Iraq? In fact, the issue of Iran is now being discussed behind closed doors at the White House. How many dissenters do you think are present at these sessions?
This time Selective Service System (SSS) regulations have been changed. This time, as SSS states, "a college student could have his induction postponed only until the end of the current semester. A senior could be postponed until the end of the full academic year." Canada will no longer welcome anti-draft people. A new SSS plan, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer last May, proposes raising the age of draft registration to 34 years old, up from 25, and possibly including women as well. People with special skills, such as computers, foreign languages, medical training and the like, will also be subject to being drafted. In effect, if approved, it will be a universal draft where everyone, including the kids of the rich and powerful, will allegedly be eligible to serve in the military.
But remember this: No congressional son was drafted during the Vietnam War and today there are virtually no congressional sons or daughters serving as enlisted combat personnel in Iraq. Since 9/11, it is almost impossible to name a single prominent pro-Iraq war activist, those who demand an all-out war against terrorism, whose son or daughter has enlisted for active military duty.
The truth is, no draft can ever be fair. Other than delighting America's living room hawks, the same favoritism and deference to influence and wealth – the well-documented kind George W. Bush received when he was granted a hard-to-get slot in the Texas Air National Guard because of his father's influence – will certainly prevail in any future draft.
dablacksox
Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.
I've already answered this. If Bush is reelected, it's for sure the rest of the world isn't going to rush into Vietraq to bail out his sorry ass. The Reserves and National Guard are fauling short of their recruitment goals and the isurgancy in Iraq is getting more violent by the day. September is the 4th deadliest month of the war for American troops and it's not even over yet. So you tell me how the country is going to be pacified by the PNAC boys.
"From Kerry's látest (9/24/04) "seven-points-plan" stance re Iraq/WOT (disclaimer, I haven't yet read the papers today):"
Well, since you take Kerry at his word that he will increase the armed forces, I'm SURE you will also take him at his word concerning the draft.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040922/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_10
"Kerry said he would not bring back the draft and questioned how fairly it was administered in the past. "
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 point of the question was, if Kerry says he would add 40,000 troops to the Army to make two divisions in an Army that is VOLUNTEER, then where is he magically going to come up with 40,000 volunteers to join the Army, especially considering that recruitments levels are so low as of late?
Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board
Nothing to contradict what he said on Sept 22. No matter how much you WISH he had, he didn't.
"Independentgrrrl posted about who is really after/behind reinstalling the draft (curiously you are not responding to that thread so far?). "
Frnakly, since that article she posted about the "Kerry Supporter" having his daughter attacked by his own son, I really don't bother with her anymore.
Let me give you a much needed civics lesson. It doesn't matter who introduces a bill in Congress. Bills are passed by Congress and signed by the president. A senator or represenative can can introduce a bill proposing that cows fly to the moon. Such a bill is meaningless unless the bill is passed by Congress. And signed by the president.
"My question to you: Given the above how do you now (re "new" facts since you started this thread) look at this draft-issue as in WHO is really after reinstalling it? Aren't you in the least bit puzzled by this??"
I already answered this. Again. Given Bush's painting himself into a corner vis-a-vie the rest of the world and Iraq, and the abortion he's created in Iraq, and the fact that the National Guard and Reserves, his favorite pool for manpower, are drying up, Bush needs to state categorically what his position on the draft is. Kerry has already. If Bush has, I would appreciate a link to it.
Bush is desperate to have showcase elections in Iraq in January. For them to be meaningful
the army and Marines will have to go into the major Iraqi cities held by the insurgency. Given the fact that they've already reesortted to the back door draft of the Ready Reserve, where do you think this manpower is going to come from?
"<<"If Bush is reelected, it's for sure the rest of the world isn't going to rush into Vietraq to bail out his sorry ass.">> .... what makes you so sure?"
Uhh- the fact that they haven't already. Even though they HAVE in Afghanistan (NATO has a force there. Including the much malighned French and Germans).
".... look here dablacksox, I tend to take everyone at his/her word until it gets ridiculous to do so. How about you?"
Yep. So point me to the same definative statement on the draft from Bush as Kerry has made.
I await your link.
dablacksox
Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.
He said it won't be by the draft. That's what this thread is about. What has Bush said about the draft?
"Following logic (it doesn't matter who introduces a bill in Congress) then why does it matter at all who initiates/introduces anything if in the end the responsibility is with the president?"
It doesn't matter who initiates a bill, unless they want to use it on their election resume. What matters is whether Congress passes it and the president signs it, or Congress overides a veto.
"What does this say about Kerry's initiative re the dismantling of the BCCI affair? He (rightly so IMO) takes credit for that no?"
The BCCI affair has nothing to do with the draft.
"In our political system it is crucial who/which party introduces a bill, so I really don't understand why this doesn't matter in your system. So please hand me another of your "much needed civics lesson" and explain this? TIA."
What matters here is whether a bill becomes law or not. If a person or party is looking for political credit they can claim ownership.
Generally by the time a bill becomes law it has been modified so many times and has so many ammendments that it little resembles the bill that was first introduced.
"Why should Bush do that? Because Kerry did?"
So you applaud two different standards? One for Kerry and one for Bush?
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