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 In 2001, President Bush authorized their call up but never rescinded this order even after he declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq in May of 2003.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: 09-02-2004
Thu, 09-30-2004 - 12:29am
Hey, I was reading an artical on the 40,000 new troops, Kerry believes that we will get the rest of the troops from other countrys, when he gets the UN involved in the war again. this was also explained to me at a dinner last night with Max cleland, he said John would not reinstate the draft, but would ask for support from other countrys.I talked with my grandfather about his he is a WWII vet, he said that the youth in this country would benefit from having to serve for at least 2 years, he said it made him a man and taught him responsibility. I don't agree with this war, but being some what young, I look at people my age and see that its the age of all about me, maybe we need someone to kick us in the rear, and make us think of more than where we can see Paris Hilton, or what cool new designer jeans are out today, that will be out next week so we have to buy more.Just my 2 cents.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
Thu, 09-30-2004 - 12:31am
By the way-for everyone who keeps repeating that talk of the draft is some sort of Democratic scare tactic, here's an interesting article. I've pulled out the comments from the Cato institute.

http://www.deanarchive.info/inthepress/thedraft/news.20031103.oiling%20up%20the%20draft%20machine.htm

Oiling up the draft machine?

Copyright 2003 Salon.com, Inc.

Salon.com

November 3, 2003 Monday

SECTION: Feature

LENGTH: 2006 words

HEADLINE: Oiling up the draft machine?

BYLINE: By Dave Lindorff



The community draft boards that became notorious for sending reluctant young men off to Vietnam have languished since the early 1970s, their membership ebbing and their purpose all but lost when the draft was ended. But a few weeks ago, on an obscure federal Web site devoted to the war on terrorism, the Bush administration quietly began a public campaign to bring the draft boards back to life.

"Serve Your Community and the Nation," the announcement urges. "If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards throughout America would decide which young men ... receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service."

Local draft board volunteers, meanwhile, report that at training sessions last summer, they were unexpectedly asked to recommend people to fill some of the estimated 16 percent of board seats that are vacant nationwide.

According to some experts, basic math might compel the Pentagon to reconsider the draft: Of a total U.S. military force of 1.4 million people around the globe (many of them in non-combat support positions and in services like the Air Force and Navy), there are currently about 140,000 active-duty, reserve and National Guard soldiers currently deployed in Iraq -- and though Rumsfeld has been an advocate of a lean, nimble military apparatus, history suggests he needs more muscle.

"The closest parallel to the Iraq situation is the British in Northern Ireland, where you also had some people supporting the occupying army and some opposing them, and where the opponents were willing to resort to terror tactics," says Charles Pena, director of defense studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "There the British needed a ratio of 10 soldiers per 1,000 population to restore order, and at their height, it was 20 soldiers per 1,000 population. If you transfer that to Iraq, it would mean you'd need at least 240,000 troops and maybe as many as 480,000.

"The only reason you aren't hearing these kinds of numbers discussed by the White House and the Defense Department right now," Pena adds, "is that you couldn't come up with them without a return to the draft, and they don't want to talk about that."

Consider that the total enlistment goal for active Army and Army reserves in the fiscal year ended Oct. 1 was 100,000. If half of the 140,000 troops currently in Iraq were to go home and stay, two-thirds of this year's recruits would be needed to replace them. And that does not take into consideration military needs at home and around the globe.

"My sense is that there is a lot of nervousness about the enlistment numbers as Iraq drags on," says Doug Bandow, another military manpower expert at Cato. "We're still early enough into it that the full impact on recruiting/retention hasn't been felt." The Pentagon, perhaps predictably, sees a more hopeful picture.



===================================================================

And, for anyone who wants to try claiming the Cato Institute is some liberal Democratic organization, here's a link to their home page.

http://www.cato.org/

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: 04-18-2004
Thu, 09-30-2004 - 1:14am

Kerry was talking about our military, not the coalition (or expected coalition from countries not currently involved).

Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 09-30-2004 - 2:05am

<<"It doesn't matter who initiates a bill, unless they want to use it on their election resume. ">>... OK I'm really trying to picture this. I am assuming that Democrats have a different POV than Republicans, correct? So two Democrats come together and decide to initiate a bill to reinstall the draft (while their candidate says he's against it).... so

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
Thu, 09-30-2004 - 10:35am
"So two Democrats come together and decide to initiate a bill to reinstall the draft (while their candidate says he's against it).... so WHY do they do this?"

To make a statement, most likely. Perhaps they actually feel a resumption of the draft will make future presidents less reckless in foreign policies.

Since this is your red herring, why don't you look up the actual bill and read it? Perhaps the bill itself has an explanation in it. I'm sure you can find it on the web.

"<<"He said it won't be by the draft. That's what this thread is about.">>.... then HOW?"

As far as I know, he hasn't exlained how, other than that it won't be by the draft.

You DO believe him don't you? YOU were the one, a few posts back, who stated you believe what people say.

"I refered to BCCI because of the/your "priciple"of "it doesn't matter who initiates anything in congress", and you are just avoiding my question."

I've already answered your questions, and I'm not going to derail this thread any further by bringing something totaly unrelated, such as BCCI, into it. You are already trying to derail the thread, which is an (unanswered) question of whether Bush is planning on bringing back the draft, by raising questions about how Kerry will expand the armed forces. This is not surprising, most Bush supporters duck his failures by attacking his opponents,whether it's John Kerry or John McCain.

?">>.... I don't understand what you mean. What standards? Kerry hás said he is against reinstalling the draft, and I comment on that. Bush hasn't said anything (as far as I know) so what do you want me to say? "

Well, you could start by explaininmg why you feel Kerry needs to come up with a detatiled plan on how he is going to expand the military, while you feel it's totaly unimportant for Bush to state whether he will return to the draft if reelected.

Bush and the draft. You know, the subject of this thread. Not Kerry and BCCI.







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: 06-17-2004
Thu, 09-30-2004 - 11:15am

This issue is bogus, and just shows how desperate the DNC has become.


From the Annenburg Foundation:


http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=200







Draft Fears Fueled by Inaccurate E-mails



A scare story spreads electronically, but it gets facts wrong.


June 15, 2004


Modified: September 29, 2004


Several FactCheck subscribers have asked about an e-mailed rumor

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Thu, 09-30-2004 - 2:59pm
Yep
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 12:11am
Yet one more reply claiming I gave a date for the resumption of the draft. First, spring of 2005, now, June of 2005.

Listen up again folks. I gave no date for this.

What I DID give was the CATO Institute, a conservative, libertarian, right wing source, claiming that 200,000 to 400,000 more American troops will be needed to placate Iraq. The CATO Institute, among others, claims that the only reasonable well is the draft.

Now-anyone else want to put words in my mouth? Anyone want to claim I said the draft will resume in January? Ground Hog Day? April 31st?

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: 04-16-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 12:39pm
You see? They were right.

You voted for Gore (BTW the stock market was tanking before the election)

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 12:40pm
Looks like CATO was wrong (again) as Bush said in the debate last night that the military would remain a voluntary one. I didnt hear Kerry say anything along those lines....did you?

Pages