Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Return of the Draft

Media Rolling Stone Tim Dickinson Military Draft

  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#1 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,905 posts

Posted 20 February 2005 - 02:57 PM

http://www.truthout....5/021205Z.shtml

The Return of the Draft

By Tim Dickinson
Rolling Stone

Thursday 27 January 2005

With the army desperate for recruits, should college students be packing their bags for Canada?
Uncle Sam wants you. He needs you. He'll bribe you to sign up. He'll strong-arm you to re-enlist. And if that's not enough, he's got a plan to draft you.

In the three decades since the Vietnam War, the "all-volunteer Army" has become a bedrock principle of the American military. "It's a magnificent force," Vice President Dick Cheney declared during the election campaign last fall, "because those serving are ones who signed up to serve." But with the Army and Marines perilously overextended by the war in Iraq, that volunteer foundation is starting to crack. The "weekend warriors" of the Army Reserve and the National Guard now make up almost half the fighting force on the front lines, and young officers in the Reserve are retiring in droves. 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." The Bush Administration has sworn up and down that it will never reinstate a draft. During the campaign last year, the president dismissed the idea as nothing more than "rumors on the Internets" and declared, "We're not going to have a draft - period." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in an Op-Ed blaming "conspiracy mongers" for "attempting to scare and mislead young Americans," insisted that "the idea of reinstating the draft has never been debated, endorsed, discussed, theorized, pondered or even whispered by anyone in the Bush administration."

That assertion is demonstrably false. According to an internal Selective Service memo made public under the Freedom of Information Act, the agency's acting director met with two of Rumsfeld's undersecretaries in February 2003 precisely to debate, discuss and ponder a return to the draft. The memo duly notes the administration's aversion to a draft but adds, "Defense manpower officials concede there are critical shortages of military personnel with certain special skills, such as medical personnel, linguists, computer network engineers, etc." The potentially prohibitive cost of "attracting and retaining such personnel for military service," the memo adds, has led "some officials to conclude that, while a conventional draft may never be needed, a draft of men and women possessing these critical skills may be warranted in a future crisis." This new draft, it suggests, could be invoked to meet the needs of both the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security.

The memo then proposes, in detail, that the Selective Service be "re-engineered" to cover all Americans - "men and (for the first time) women" - ages eighteen to thirty-four. In addition to name, date of birth and Social Security number, young adults would have to provide the agency
with details of their specialized skills on an ongoing basis until they passed out of draft jeopardy at age thirty-five.

Testifying before Congress two weeks after the meeting, acting director of Selective Service Lewis Brodsky acknowledged that "consultations with senior Defense manpower officials" have spurred the agency to shift its preparations away from a full-scale, Vietnam-style draft of untrained men "to a draft of smaller numbers of critical-skills personnel."
Richard Flahavan, spokesman for Selective Service, tells Rolling Stone that preparing for a skills-based draft is "in fact what we have been doing." For starters, the agency has updated a plan to draft nurses and doctors. But that's not all. "Our thinking was that if we could run a health-care draft in the future," Flahavan says, "then with some very slight tinkering we could change that skill to plumbers or linguists or electrical engineers or whatever the military was short." In other words, if Uncle Sam decides he needs people with your skills, Selective Service has the means to draft you - and quick.

But experts on military manpower say the focus on drafting personnel with special skills misses the larger point. The Army needs more soldiers, not just more doctors and linguists. "What you've got now is a real shortage
of grunts - guys who can actually carry bayonets," says McPeak. A wholesale draft may be necessary, he adds, "to deal with the situation we've got ourselves into. We've got to have a bigger Army."

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. "Let's say North Korea strikes a deal with Al Qaeda to sell them a nuclear weapon or something," he says. "I frankly don't see how you could fight two wars at the same time with the all-volunteer approach." If a second Korean War should break out, the United States has reportedly committed to deploying a force of nearly 700,000 to defend South Korea - almost half of America's entire military.

The politics of the draft are radioactive: Polls show that less than twenty percent of Americans favor forced military service. But conscription has some unlikely champions, including veterans and critics of the administration who are opposed to Bush's war in Iraq. Reinstating the draft, they say, would force every level of society to participate in military service, rather than placing a disproportionate burden on minorities and the working class. African-Americans, who make up roughly thirteen percent of the civilian population, account for twenty-two percent of the armed forces.

And the Defense Department acknowledges that recruits are drawn "primarily from families in the middle and lower-middle socioeconomic strata."

A societywide draft would also make it more difficult for politicians to commit troops to battle without popular approval. "The folks making the decisions are committing other people's lives to a war effort that they're not making any sacrifices for," says Charles Sheehan-Miles, who fought in the first Gulf War and now serves as director of Veterans for Common Sense.

Under the current all-volunteer system, fewer than a dozen members of Congress have children in the military.

Charlie Moskos, a professor of military sociology at Northwestern University, says the volunteer system also limits the political fallout of unpopular wars. "Without a draft, there's really no antiwar movement," Moskos says. Nearly sixty percent of Americans believe the war in Iraq was a mistake, he notes, but they have no immediate self-interest in taking to the streets because "we're willing to pay people to die for us. It doesn't reflect very well on the character of our society."

Even military recruiters agree that the only way to persuade average Americans to make long-term sacrifices in war is for the children of the elite to put their lives on the line. In a recent meeting with military recruiters, Moskos discussed the crisis in enlistment. "I asked them would they prefer to have their advertising budget tripled or have Jenna Bush join the Army," he says. "They unanimously chose the Jenna option."

One of the few politicians willing to openly advocate a return to the draft is Rep. Charles Rangel, a Democrat from New York, who argues that the current system places an immoral burden on America's underprivileged. "It shouldn't be just the poor and the working poor who find their way into harm's way," he says. In the days leading up to the Iraq war, Rangel introduced a bill to reinstate the draft - with absolutely no deferments. "If the kids and grandkids of the president and the Cabinet and the Pentagon were vulnerable to going to Iraq, we never would have gone - no question in my mind," he says. "The closer this thing comes home to Americans, the
quicker we'll be out of Iraq."

But instead of exploring how to share the burden more fairly, the military is cooking up new ways to take advantage of the economically disadvantaged. Rangel says military recruiters have confided in him that they're targeting inner cities and rural areas with high unemployment. In December, the National Guard nearly doubled its enlistment bonus to $10,000, and the Army is trying to attract urban youth with a marketing campaign called "Taking It to the Streets," which features a pimped-out yellow Hummer and a basketball exhibition replete with free throwback jerseys. President Bush has also signed an executive order allowing legal immigrants to apply for citizenship immediately - rather than wait five years - if they volunteer for active duty.

"It's so completely unethical and immoral to induce people that have limited education and limited job ability to have to put themselves in harm's way for ten, twenty or thirty thousand dollars," Rangel says. "Just how broke do you have to be to take advantage of these incentives?" Seducing soldiers with cold cash also unnerves military commanders. "We must consider the point at which we confuse 'volunteer to become an American soldier' with 'mercenary,' " Lt. Gen. James Helmly, the commander of the Army Reserve, wrote in a memo to senior Army leadership in December.

The Reserve, Helmly warns, "is rapidly degenerating into a broken force." The Army National Guard is also in trouble: It missed its recruitment goals of 56,000 by more than 5,000 in fiscal year 2004 and is already 2,000 soldiers short in fiscal 2005. To keep enough boots on the ground, the Pentagon has stopped asking volunteer soldiers to extend their service - and started demanding it. Using a little-known provision called
"stop loss," the military is forcing reservists and guardsmen to remain on active duty indefinitely. "This is an 'all-volunteer Army' with footnotes," says McPeak. "And it's the footnotes that are being held in Iraq against their wishes. If that's not a back-door draft, tell me what is."

David Qualls, who joined the Arkansas National Guard for a year, is one of 40,000 troops in Iraq who have been informed that their enlistment has been extended until December 24th, 2031. "I've served five months past my one-year obligation," says Qualls, the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the military with breach of contract. "It's time to let me go
back to my life. It's a question of fairness, and not only for myself. This is for the thousands of other people that are involuntarily extended in Iraq. Let us go home."


The Army insists that most "stop-lossed" soldiers will be held on the front lines for no longer than eighteen months. But Jules Lobel, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights who is representing eight National Guardsmen in a lawsuit challenging the extensions, says the 2031 date is being used to strong-arm volunteers into re-enlisting. According to Lobel, the military is telling soldiers, "We're giving you a chance to voluntarily re-enlist - and if you don't do it, we'll screw you. And the first way we'll screw you is to put you in until 2031."
But threatening volunteers, military experts warn, could be the quickest way to ensure a return to the draft. According to O'Hanlon at the Brookings Institute, such "callousness" may make it impossible to recruit new soldiers - no matter how much money you throw at them. And if bigger sign-up bonuses and more aggressive recruitment tactics don't do the trick, says Helmly of the Army Reserve, it could "force the nation into an argument" about reinstating the draft.

In the end, it may simply come down to a matter of math. In January, Bush told America's soldiers that "much more will be asked of you" in his second term, even as he openly threatened Iran with military action. Another war, critics warn, would push the all-volunteer force to its breaking point.

"This damn thing is just an explosion that's about to happen," says Rangel. Bush officials "can say all they want that they don't want the draft, but there's not going to be that many more buttons to push."

~edit due to webtv, links and sleepy mind. :)

Edited by Elara, 20 February 2005 - 03:07 PM.

El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#2 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 20 February 2005 - 03:31 PM

With regards to the notion of drafting people. Many years ago while chatting with a retired soldier over the table of a youth hostel in Oregon he said to me that there was a law in the US, that any american can be drafted if

Quote

they have a skill that cannot be duplicated by any other means

anyone know if this is true?

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#3 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 20 February 2005 - 03:33 PM

Thirty four?
you can't even enlist after 29 -

they expect they can draft someone too old to even enlist??

no, I don't see this happening- in the past the draft was 18- 29, and they didn't take anyone over say about 24 ......

but I'm not expecting a draft- registering is one thing, hey didn't they institute that back in the 80s? the register part? even when there was no actual draft-

is that strongarm thing really true, to hold them by statute til 2031? I don't believe that; they just hold them for another year {or as long as the armed crisis is lasting}, ie: boots in Iraq

But I'll say, if I was pondering signing up for reserves and then seeing how they are treated in this stop thing- my pen would probably be hovering over the paper without touching for quite a while of pondering!

I do think it's a little early to worry about drafts- I just say: Reserve is one thing, but Get Those National Guard back here! on the double! Iraq is NOT what they were intended for-
OH and while yer attitt: make double sure those Iraq guard and police only travel in heavily armed large packs like wolves! they're getting decimated over there (while trying to trust US)
"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#4 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 20 February 2005 - 03:48 PM

There is simply too much that is either wrong or misleading and generally scare-mongering about this article for me to deal with in one post and I'm really getting tired of having to repeat the same arguements again and again so I'll just mention one thing while I collect a more measured response,
Here is hopefully a link to my" Army Seeks Separating Airmen, Another perspective on personnel" thread
http://www.exisle.ne...topic=19718&hl=

Every service branch but the Army is more than meeting its recruitment goals and are actually discharging people to lower thier personnel sizes. The thread was about a plan that would give discharged Air Force personnel the chance to join up with the Army if they chose.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#5 misterMel_Q

misterMel_Q
  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 31 posts

Posted 20 February 2005 - 04:08 PM

Steven_Q, on Feb 20 2005, 03:31 PM, said:

With regards to the notion of drafting people. Many years ago while chatting with a retired soldier over the table of a youth hostel in Oregon he said to me that there was a law in the US, that any american can be drafted if

Quote

they have a skill that cannot be duplicated by any other means

anyone know if this is true?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

AFAIK, it is true, and doesn't require a needed skill.  If a male person leave the military healthy before he were too old to register or reregister with the SSS, he must do so and will be eligable for any draft.
This doen't take into accout the Inactive Ready Reserve.  I don't know if IRR pertains to all U. S. branches of military, but I am aware of the U. S. Army component.  You don't just enlist in the Army, Army Reserves, or Army National Guard; you also enlist into the IRR for 8 years.  That 8 years holds true regardless of your enlistment- i. e.  a soldier that has completed a 4 year enlistment still has 4 years left remaining on the IRR and can be recalled.  I personally know an Army National Guard member who had completed his enlistment requirements,  but was recalled to active duty during Desert Shield.  His MOS was 91B10 (a "combat medic"), so clearly they probably felt his skill was needed. That sounds more like what your friend was referring to IMO, not the draft. They can recall you without a draft in other words, as long as you are a component of the IRR.

#6 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 20 February 2005 - 05:24 PM

I'm sorry, I was unclear. He very specifically said that this provision covers any American citizen, regardless of previous military experience or lack there-off.

#7 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 20 February 2005 - 05:29 PM

There is nothing like that to my knowledge, unless it is a leftover of the various war powers acts of World War II that was never striken from the books or allowed to expire.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#8 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,905 posts

Posted 20 February 2005 - 06:34 PM

Well, as a mother of one son and as a niece of a man who was called back and died, any hint of draft does not set well with me.

I already have one friend that was there and had his stay extended again and again and yet again before he got to come home. And though I have not asked him, I am betting he could still get sent back.

On the brightside, anyone that tried to enlist before could now be accepted.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#9 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 20 February 2005 - 07:25 PM

Hmmm...



Quote

According to an internal Selective Service memo made public under the Freedom of Information Act, the agency's acting director met with two of Rumsfeld's undersecretaries in February 2003 precisely to debate, discuss and ponder a return to the draft. The memo duly notes the administration's aversion to a draft but adds, "Defense manpower officials concede there are critical shortages of military personnel with certain special skills, such as medical personnel, linguists, computer network engineers, etc." The potentially prohibitive cost of "attracting and retaining such personnel for military service," the memo adds, has led "some officials to conclude that, while a conventional draft may never be needed, a draft of men and women possessing these critical skills may be warranted in a future crisis." This new draft, it suggests, could be invoked to meet the needs of both the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security.

The memo then proposes, in detail, that the Selective Service be "re-engineered" to cover all Americans - "men and (for the first time) women" - ages eighteen to thirty-four. In addition to name, date of birth and Social Security number, young adults would have to provide the agency
with details of their specialized skills on an ongoing basis until they passed out of draft jeopardy at age thirty-five.

Unless that memo doesn't exist, it does sound like the idea of a skills draft is being seriously considered.

Quote

Richard Flahavan, spokesman for Selective Service, tells Rolling Stone that preparing for a skills-based draft is "in fact what we have been doing." For starters, the agency has updated a plan to draft nurses and doctors. But that's not all. "Our thinking was that if we could run a health-care draft in the future," Flahavan says, "then with some very slight tinkering we could change that skill to plumbers or linguists or electrical engineers or whatever the military was short."

Reckon this guy is fibbing?

I think the original focus was to prepare for, god forbid, a massive terror attack on the U.S. But it sounds as though they're preparing for a possible shortage of certain skills in the military as well.

And if we do find ourselves in an outbreak of a second war, say with North Korea or Syria and/or Iran, a general draft would be inevitable, wouldn't it?

Quote

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. "Let's say North Korea strikes a deal with Al Qaeda to sell them a nuclear weapon or something," he says. "I frankly don't see how you could fight two wars at the same time with the all-volunteer approach." If a second Korean War should break out, the United States has reportedly committed to deploying a force of nearly 700,000 to defend South Korea - almost half of America's entire military.

I should think we'd have to be prepared for that possibility, no matter how (I hope)  small.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#10 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 20 February 2005 - 09:36 PM

The thing is though South Korea already has the necessary ground forces to holdoff the North without any help from us and American war plans have shifted to reflect this new reality, with the primary American component to the defence plan being the provision of  America only capabilities such as stealth aircraft, missile defence forces and carriers while slowly drawing down the ground troops for other needs as occurred recently.
But even the old "two wars and a major peacekeeping incident" plans of the 1990s didn't commit as many forces as this article is implying the US would have to send to Korea. There are certain units with standing mission orders to be deployed in certain areas if they are needed but that is no garantee that they would be sent or even activated and even then those dedicated to the Korean theater don't addup to the level of troop commitment mentioned in the article.
The primary issues with North Korea in a military sense have become, 1, the artillery they have deployed near the DMZ that wil cause horrendous casualties in the immediate border area including the capitol of Seoul, 2, the possibility that the North Koreas could deploy either nuclear warheads or chemical agents on thier missiles for a vengence strike. Even if the US sends no more forces than what it currently has in South Korea and Japan thier is no way aside from complete incompetance on the allied side for North Korea to win. Thier equipment is archiac, thier stocks of food, fuel and ammunition barely enough for 2 weeks of sustained operations and they haven't been in actual combat in more than fifty years. This would not be a sustained conflict or a world war unless our sides displays almost blinding incompetance. The question is really" how badly can they hurt us before they loose?' and what the negotiations have been about is to prevent this hurting, not stop a war that North Korea will in all probablity lose. So thier would be no need for a draft to fight a war with North Korea, aside from the occupation and peacekeeping that the South Koreans can do better anyway, the war would be over before the necessary machinery to generate a draft would be in place.
Syria and Iran are different and more complicated stories although frankly I don't see the US going to war with either nation any time soon and I don't see why the same steps that have been taken with any hostile power in the past(designing a plan for potential conflict and wargaming it) are suddenly being used to justify saying that some new rush to conflict is in the works or why the day to day use of diplomatic pressure in Syria's case suddenly seems to mean that the US is going to attack them. It's nothing new.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#11 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 21 February 2005 - 01:07 AM

This guy has bad facts up the wazzo.  We don't need a draft to expand the size of the military.  We fielded a much larger Army during the 1980s with the us having twice the number of divisions that we have currently.  The point is that the Army could create the incentives to increase the force if need be before anyone committed suicide by trying for a draft.

Quote

Tennyson: The thing is though South Korea already has the necessary ground forces to holdoff the North without any help from us and American war plans have shifted to reflect this new reality, with the primary American component to the defence plan being the provision of America only capabilities such as stealth aircraft, missile defence forces and carriers while slowly drawing down the ground troops for other needs as occurred recently.
I have to agree with Tennyson.  The South Koreans are more than equipped to beat off the North Koreans and go on the offensive against them.  Our own contribution would mostly consist of airpower, carriers, and intelligence.  None of these assets are really over stretched from Iraq.  We might send a couple brigades of troops or a division or two but the South Koreans could really handle the bulk of it.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#12 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,905 posts

Posted 21 February 2005 - 01:37 AM

tennyson, on Feb 20 2005, 03:48 PM, said:

There is simply too much that is either wrong or misleading and generally scare-mongering about this article for me to deal with in one post and I'm really getting tired of having to repeat the same arguements again and again so I'll just mention one thing while I collect a more measured response,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Well, I have a son and I intend to watch this kind of thing carefully. You may have all kinds of articles to the contrary, but I will doubt since it could be as biased as you suggest this one to be.

And if you are so tired of discussing this, please feel free to ignore this thread.

As I have said before, my son will not fight in this war, not ...this... one.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#13 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 21 February 2005 - 01:55 AM

I never rely on one source for anything nor do I consider one article to be authorative for a complex issue. If anything that my life trying to get into academia has shown is that to rely upon one thing is not a productive way to arrive at good information.The one article I posted earlier was simply one piece of a much larger and more varied puzzle that is the issue of maintaining personnel strengths and was intended as an intial response while I gathered more information.
I'm not tired of discussing this. What I am tired of is having to fight the same misinformation again and again. Yet I cannot ignore yet more scaremongering and conspiracy chasing passing for reasoned evaluation of the issue in that article. Thier is no need for a draft, the military doesn't want it, policy makers don't want it and the public has been shown in surveys not to want it, the 2 bills that were introduced into Congress for it as political statements are dead yet here it is again. When even the generals and admirals themselves discussing personnel numbers in thier own journals don't want it then I don't see where there is need for worry.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#14 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 21 February 2005 - 02:15 AM

Elara, on Feb 21 2005, 01:37 AM, said:

You may have all kinds of articles to the contrary, but I will doubt since it could be as biased as you suggest this one to be.
Well there is no suggesting for this article since it is pretty much in the public realm that the troop numbers and about everything mentioned in the article is widely off target.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#15 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 21 February 2005 - 02:21 AM

Just for reference, we've discussed this topic of the draft before.
"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#16 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,905 posts

Posted 21 February 2005 - 02:48 AM

CJ AEGIS, on Feb 21 2005, 01:07 AM, said:

This guy has bad facts up the wazzo.  We don't need a draft to expand the size of the military.  We fielded a much larger Army during the 1980s with the us having twice the number of divisions that we have currently.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


And you don't think there is a huge difference between now and the 1980's?
We had a much larger military because the fear of the draft was gone, Vietnam type wars were believed to be over.

1980's consisted of:
Lebanon, 1983 a suicide bomber killed 241 soldiers.
19 died in Grenada.

This is a far cry from what is happening now in death tolls. Now we are in a war, a war that is too Vietnam-like. I don't think they are going to get as many signing up as they did in the 80's.

But as I said, those that were turned down before can now most likely get in, so I say let them try again, then I don't have to worry. :)
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#17 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 21 February 2005 - 02:57 AM

The 1980s also consisted of the 1989 invasion of Panama where more people died than in the 1983 invasion of Grenda, the 1985-86 confrontations with Libya, reflagging tankers and escourting them through the Persian Gulf that included Iraq killing 37 sailors on the USS Stark with an Exocet missile, then direct combat with Iran in 1988 where the US forces managed to destroy two oil platforms they were using as military bases and sink or badly maul roughly half the Iranian Navy among other smaller  events and the massive looming prescence of war with the Soviet Union in the future.
It was no cakewalk where nothing could happen to you, although it was before the end of the Cold War brought all the various simering conflicts that had been held in check to a boil.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#18 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,905 posts

Posted 21 February 2005 - 03:00 AM

tennyson, on Feb 21 2005, 01:55 AM, said:

I never rely on one source for anything nor do I consider one article to be authorative for a complex issue.

~.~ Nor do I, but I also do not discount this one as quickly as you do. I have a son about to turn 16, so if you think I am going to just dismiss this...

Quote

I'm not tired of discussing this. What I am tired of is having to fight the same misinformation again and again. Yet I cannot ignore yet more scaremongering and conspiracy chasing passing for reasoned evaluation of the issue in that article.

~.~ Well, I am not tired of saying over and over that I have a son, so it is my duty as his mother to pay attention to articles like the one I posted.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#19 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,905 posts

Posted 21 February 2005 - 03:10 AM

tennyson, on Feb 21 2005, 02:57 AM, said:

It was no cakewalk where nothing could happen to you, although it was before the end of the Cold War brought all the various simering conflicts that had been held in check to a boil.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


~.~ Thank you, I could not remember all of them.

Now, look at and compare the time frame and deaths of the 80's against the WW's, Korea and Vietnam.
Then tell me that I am incorrect in my assessment of enlistment in the 80's.

~edited to add: I was discussing US soldier deaths, not all deaths.

Edited by Elara, 21 February 2005 - 03:57 AM.

El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#20 Josh

Josh

    He stares...

  • Islander
  • 13,774 posts

Posted 21 February 2005 - 03:10 AM

I don't find it likely. Wars are fought very differently in modern days than they were back in the day when the draft was actually viable. Now, soldiers require training in all sorts of electronic gadgetry and tactics, a process that takes time.

And of course, there's the issue of drafting someone who does NOT want to be there and who can be a risk to himself or others on the battlefield. And yes, I'm basically saying stuff that's been said over and over again in other threads, but at least I'm able to remember the details. :p
"THE UNICORNS ARE NOT TO BE TRIFLED WITH!" - John Burke.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Media, Rolling Stone, Tim Dickinson, Military Draft

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users