PDA

View Full Version : The upcoming US military draft?



Telperion
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 06:00 PM
[Note that this draft appears to be designed to deflect the sort of criticism, applied to the Vietnam-era draft, that the sons of the rich were effectively exempt - also note that it includes women as well as men.]


The Draft will Start in June 2005

(May 27, 2004)

There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era. College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country.

Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.
Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a shelter and includes women in the draft.

The public has a right to air their opinions about such an important decision.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congressorg

Scoob
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 06:12 PM
What ages will be drafted?

This war won't be won by sending in lots of troops. What is needed is propaganda and smart weapons.

Telperion
Saturday, May 29th, 2004, 06:31 PM
In the current versions of these Congressional bills the ages subject to the draft appear to be 18-26. However, I've read in some other articles that apparently some congressmen would prefer the ages to be 18-34, in order to substantially increase the size of the draft pool. In either case, obviously, 18-26 year olds are on the hook.

Telperion
Friday, July 9th, 2004, 01:30 AM
[Officials are now denying that there are plans to reinstate the draft - though, one would hardly expect them to say anything else in the months prior to an election. These official denials don't seem to square well with the legislation that has been introduced in Congress, or objective assessments of the force requirements of the US military given its current pattern of operations.]

No Plans for Military Draft, Official Says



By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 8, 2004; Page A10

There are no plans to reinstate a military draft and the Bush administration does not support conscription, the Pentagon's top official for personnel and readiness told Congress yesterday.

Trying to counter recent Internet rumors that the military and the Selective Service System are girding for a potential draft to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Undersecretary of Defense David S.C. Chu said there is no reason to bring back the draft. He fielded questions at a House Armed Services Committee hearing that focused on the strains on military personnel as officials plan to rotate more troops into the conflicts in coming months.
"The administration does not support resumption of the draft," Chu said, responding to a question from Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.). "There is no secret plan on this front."

Members of the committee bemoaned the rising stress on the Army and the increasing use of the National Guard and Reserves. Chu and top military officials said that there is definitely a strain, but that the Army can handle its current operations while relying on reserve forces to share "the burden of service" throughout the all-volunteer military.

There are 18 brigades with more than 140,000 troops in Iraq, and officials said yesterday that the next rotation will keep about 135,000 troops there in 17 brigades. The U.S military is expected to have a presence in Iraq for several years, but Pentagon officials yesterday declined to speak to the committee publicly about future rotations, saying only that they will be "different."

Last week, the Army announced it is dipping into a pool of soldiers who have left active duty, calling up 5,600 this week who are in the Individual Ready Reserve. While the IRR has more than 111,000 members, the Army's Human Resources Command has identified more than 22,000 it could call into service if needed. Pentagon officials have said they probably will tap into some of that pool.

A recent "stop-loss" order kept thousands of soldiers in the military despite their plans to leave active duty, and it followed a Pentagon decision to move thousands of troops from South Korea into western Iraq by early next year. The Army is also sending its elite training forces overseas.

As of the next rotation into Iraq, reserve components are slated to make up 43 percent of the forces there, said Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Gen. Richard A. Cody, the Army's vice chief of staff, said forces are "absolutely" stretched thin. He also said the entire force is doing a job it was not necessarily trained for, arguing that the Army needs to reconfigure from a Cold War stance to a more versatile force for the global war on terrorism. "This is a different war," he said.

Some lawmakers said yesterday that they fear the military is dangerously close to being broken. Rep. Ike Skelton (Mo.), the committee's ranking Democrat, said he believes that the military is wearing its soldiers out. Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said he believes the military is "using people pretty hard right now" and needs to consider expanding, an idea the Pentagon has resisted because it would raise the military's budget.

"We are also concerned that insufficient force structure and manpower are leaving the services to make a decision that I liken to eating the seed corn," committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) said.



© 2004 The Washington Post Company http://www.washingtonpost.com/

JoeDas
Friday, July 9th, 2004, 06:37 AM
There are something like 2 million 18-year-old American males. They simply don't need 2 million more G.I.s. If they're looking to draft males 18-26, there would be a pool of 18 million (2 million x 9).
What would they need that many new soldiers for? What would they do with all of them :confused ? That's why I think this won't happen

Telperion
Friday, July 9th, 2004, 08:22 AM
Well, I think your conclusion is based on a flawed assumption, namely that they would draft a substantial portion of the total available draft pool at the same time. But, the way the draft pool works is they try to assemble as large a pool as possible, so that they have the widest possible range of options for drafting the people they need, when they need them, for various operational purposes as they arise.

That's the way it worked during the Vietnam war as well. There was a large draft pool, but only a relatively small number of people would be selected by the draft lottery to serve at any given time (hence the name, 'selective service').
Also, bear in mind that not everyone drafted gets sent to the 'front lines'. Every infantryman, for instance, requires a number of logistical types to support him. If you want to draft an additional 50,000 infantry, you need to draft at least several times as many people to serve in logistical and support positions, unless you want your exisiting logistical network to become overburdened.

As it is, there are three basic policy options; abandon the occupation of Iraq and the troop presence in Afghanistan, and avoid the draft; maintain the occupations and strain the military's currently available resources until the infantry (in particular) can simply no longer function adequately, especially in terms of threats in other theatres (e.g. East Asia); or, maintain current operations and reinstate the draft so that the military can quickly induct new troops when it needs them, in the numbers that it requires.

The military may not necessarily care for the draft option, since they have long had a preference for the all-volunteer army over a conscript army. But the military doesn't set the foreign policy agenda; the politicians do. Bush (explicitly through the Project for a New American Century document and the National Security Strategy of the US, 2002), and it seems Kerry as well, both have a foreign policy agenda towards the Middle East, and to some extent East Asia, that requires a continuing and even escalating troop presence in these places. Therefore, unless they want the US military to collapse under logistical strain and lack of manpower, a draft is a military necessity.

The only way there won't be a draft is if there is a profound shift in US foreign policy objectives, and I don't see any realistic sign of that for the foreseeable future.

JoeDas
Sunday, July 11th, 2004, 12:41 AM
You may be right about this. You have to admit though, that based on the way the government and the Pentagon is talking right now (denying it outright again and again), a draft doesn't seem likely. Realistically I can't see Congress passing a bill that re-institutes the draft. Can you? It's not a sign of an imminent draft that there is Draft legislation before Congress right now, as Draft legislation is nothing new. There have been several bills to re-institute it since it was stopped in '73, all have failed

Odin Of Ossetia
Sunday, July 11th, 2004, 12:46 AM
What ages will be drafted?

This war won't be won by sending in lots of troops. What is needed is propaganda and smart weapons.





I think too many people are too familiar with your propaganda and what it is really about.


Smart weapons? You mean those precision-guided missiles that put an abrupt end to all those wedding parties?!




http://wolnapolska.boom.ru/index-Milosevic.html




;(

Telperion
Sunday, July 11th, 2004, 01:32 AM
You may be right about this. You have to admit though, that based on the way the government and the Pentagon is talking right now (denying it outright again and again), a draft doesn't seem likely. Realistically I can't see Congress passing a bill that re-institutes the draft. Can you? It's not a sign of an imminent draft that there is Draft legislation before Congress right now, as Draft legislation is nothing new. There have been several bills to re-institute it since it was stopped in '73, all have failed
It's hard to say. There would be massive political resistance to the idea, of course. But, the only alternative to the draft, unless they want the military to disintegrate under its current logistical strain, is to end the occupation of Iraq entirely, and to scale back troop commitments elsewhere.

That's a possible outcome, naturally, though it raises its own thorny political dilemmas. The biggest problem is that if Iraq, post US withdrawal, dissolves into chaos or civil war, and/or the Saudi regime falls to Islamists (which appears to be a worry of many Western observers at the present time), then the security of the US oil supply in the Middle East will be severely jeopardized, and the US will lack the troop strength to effectively intervene. That in turn would cause a massive disruption to the US economy.

So, my own view is a draft in 2005 is questionable, but a draft within the next several years is quite likely. Basically, the US has gotten a free ride off Middle East oil for a long time, but as political instability increases in that region, and physical oil supplies become strained, the chickens are coming home to roost. Americans can't guzzle gasoline like there's no tomorrow, and at the same time refuse to make the difficult decisions that will likely be necessary to maintain adequate supplies of it.

JoeDas
Sunday, July 11th, 2004, 01:40 AM
It's hard to say. There would be massive political resistance to the idea, of course. But, the only alternative to the draft, unless they want the military to disintegrate under its current logistical strain, is to end the occupation of Iraq entirely, and to scale back troop commitments elsewhere.

That's a possible outcome, naturally, though it raises its own thorny political dilemmas. The biggest problem is that if Iraq, post US withdrawal, dissolves into chaos or civil war, and/or the Saudi regime falls to Islamists (which appears to be a worry of many Western observers at the present time), then the security of the US oil supply in the Middle East will be severely jeopardized, and the US will lack the troop strength to effectively intervene. That in turn would cause a massive disruption to the US economy.

So, my own view is a draft in 2005 is questionable, but a draft within the next several years is quite likely. Basically, the US has gotten a free ride off Middle East oil for a long time, but as political instability increases in that region, and physical oil supplies become strained, the chickens are coming home to roost. Americans can't guzzle gasoline like there's no tomorrow, and at the same time refuse to make the difficult decisions that will likely be necessary to maintain adequate supplies of it.Another terrorist attack, and the political opposition to a draft that would dissolve. We all remember the few weeks immediately after 9/11, at that time the government could've done anything they wanted...

At least you're lucky enough to be past the SSS recruitment age by a few years, I'll be in the SSS database until 2012!

Telperion
Sunday, July 11th, 2004, 01:49 AM
Another terrorist attack, and the political opposition to a draft that would dissolve. We all remember the few weeks immediately after 9/11, at that time the government could've done anything they wanted...

At least you're lucky enough to be past the SSS recruitment age by a few years, I'll be in the SSS database until 2012!
Actually, I'm a Canadian citizen, so I'm not eligible for your country's draft.

But, I hope you don't get drafted. Maybe you should learn some technical skill so that, if you do, you'll be put in a rear-line support position, and not in the infantry. I think that's what I would do if I were in your position.

JoeDas
Sunday, July 11th, 2004, 02:00 AM
Whoa sorry about that. Considering you are a Canadian, you know a lot about USA :) So much so that I thought you were an American

Telperion
Sunday, July 11th, 2004, 02:08 AM
Whoa sorry about that. Considering you are a Canadian, you know a lot about USA :) So much so that I thought you were an American
That's OK. We Canadians get mistaken for Americans on a regular basis in any event.

Newgrange
Wednesday, July 14th, 2004, 02:54 AM
how many young people will be classified unfit to serve in the military, do to being overweight?

I bet a lot of People will even try to gain weight to avoid service.

JoeDas
Wednesday, July 14th, 2004, 03:42 AM
how many young people will be classified unfit to serve in the military, do to being overweight?That's what Basic Training is for! They work them so hard in Basic Training, that no matter how many fat recruits were to enter the army, there wouldn't be any fat soldiers in the end. It's really not difficult to lose weight in the army!:)

Stríbog
Wednesday, July 14th, 2004, 05:34 AM
This war won't be won by sending in lots of troops. What is needed is propaganda and smart weapons.

'This war' shouldn't be won by the US, and won't be in the long run. As USrael's blatant moral hypocrisy, diplomatic deception, and pretentious, faux-humanistic posturing alienate more and more of the world and specifically piss off more and more Muslims, attacks on the Judeo-American Empire will increase externally and the Empire will also crumble from within as the inevitable economic decline ensues when Russia and China switch the bulk of their reserves off the dollar. 'Diversity' and immigration will further destabilize American society. It would be hilarious if the Mexicans went on the Reconquista-Aztlan war path while the US was trying to fight a ridiculous 'war on terror' overseas.



You have to admit though, that based on the way the government and the Pentagon is talking right now (denying it outright again and again), a draft doesn't seem likely.


You really trust 'your' government? Ever heard of the credibility gap? Do you believe there were 'weapons of mass destruction' in Iraq? Do you believe the Warren Commission? That it was a 'lone gunman'? Do you think the US tells the truth about its biological weapons programs, about its relationship with Israel? You didn't hear them tell you about the Liberty or the Mossad agents on 9-11, did you? Why should official government press releases on ANYTHING be trusted?

It should be obvious they will lie until the election is over. Then they will implement all these bills that are currently in committee. The population won't even complain. No one stood up to the Patriot Acts, after all.



how many young people will be classified unfit to serve in the military, do to being overweight?

I bet a lot of People will even try to gain weight to avoid service.


Yeah, those unpatriotic bastards. They should be out fightin' ragheads an' savin' FREEDOM! Let's roll! Bring it on! UNITED WE STAND!

This is just another instance of the Bush regime foisting a military-industrial oligarchy on the population. The average American citizen is too stupid to notice or to care, as long as they have their SUV and TV sports and Bud Light. My heart goes out to the few conscientious Americans who realize what is going on. Such is the nature of the sham known as "democracy." The ignorant, stupid and repulsive masses repress the deserving elite politically and spiritually.

When they impose the draft, maybe a tour of duty will teach some of the gung-ho Rambo wannabes a thing or two about for whom and for what the US is really fighting. Some people remain stupid regardless, though, like Pat Tillman.

JoeDas
Wednesday, July 14th, 2004, 05:58 AM
So Stríbog, please clear something up: Do you seriously think there will be a draft in 2005? If so, would you go if your "number was chosen"? Why or why not?

Stríbog
Wednesday, July 14th, 2004, 06:30 AM
So Stríbog, please clear something up: Do you seriously think there will be a draft in 2005?


Yes.


If so, would you go if your "number was chosen"?

LOL have I not made myself clear enough in past posts?


Why or why not?

I'm not going to die for Israel in a part of the world the US has no business policing anyway. I'm not going to spill my blood for Halliburton and Ariel Sharon. I don't agree with virtually anything the current US regime does or says. I don't trust our government and I don't respect the American populace. I have better things to do with my life than defend the 'freedom' of a whore among nations and her degenerate sheep.

JoeDas
Wednesday, July 14th, 2004, 06:48 AM
So let me see if I understand your position: You'd sooner serve time in jail than serve time in the Army? I'd rather join the army than the US prison inmate population, but that's just me

Stríbog
Wednesday, July 14th, 2004, 07:30 AM
So let me see if I understand your position: You'd sooner serve time in jail than serve time in the Army? I'd rather join the army than the US prison inmate population, but that's just me

Actually, I'd rather emigrate to a US-unfriendly European country and renounce my American citizenship than serve in the military. But being in jail would still probably beat getting blown up or shot.

JoeDas
Wednesday, July 14th, 2004, 07:55 AM
http://www.forums.skadi.net/images/icons/icon13.gif to renouncing American citizenship...why in the world would you want to do that? I don't know why you are so bitterly against America :confused America isn't such a bad place





I have better things to do with my life than defend the 'freedom' of a whore among nations and her degenerate sheep.So if you hate America and American people so much, would you be a fifth columnist if one of those "US-unfriendly European countries" invaded America? (This is obviously purely hypothetical because no European country is gonna invade North America anytime soon, but I'd be interested to hear your answer anyway)

Newgrange
Wednesday, July 14th, 2004, 08:51 AM
Stríbog you don't believe any country has the right to self-defense?

Stríbog
Wednesday, July 14th, 2004, 09:02 AM
Stríbog you don't beleive any country has the right to self-defense?

Of course I do. I believe Iraq has the right to defend itself against Yankee-Zionist imperialists who mutilate civilians and steal oil.

I don't believe, though, that 'self-defense' covers invading an independent country (already weak from years of immoral sanctions) without warning or justification; murdering, incinerating and butchering the civilians; and deposing the legitimate government of that country.

JoeDas
Monday, December 6th, 2004, 09:43 AM
Well, it'll be 2005 in four weeks, and no sign of a draft yet...stay tuned :)


(I still don't think it'll happen, but if it does happen, I'm ready).

Telperion
Tuesday, December 7th, 2004, 12:25 AM
I would say that in the six months or so subsequent to the upcoming Iraqi election in January 2005 (and depending on the impact that election has on the stability of that country and the region generally), we'll see whether these draft rumours were completely bogus, or contained some substance.

Telperion
Wednesday, June 15th, 2005, 05:24 AM
Military Draft Back On US Agenda

By Maxim Kniazkov in Washington
The Daily Telegraph - Australia
6-15-5



(AFP) -- The United States would "have to face" a painful dilemma on restoring the military draft as rising casualties saw the number of volunteers dry up, a senator warned today.



Joseph Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made the prediction after new data released by the Pentagon showed the US Army failing to meet its recruitment targets for four straight months.



"We're going to have to face that question," he said on NBC's Meet the Press TV show when asked if it was realistic to expect restoration of the draft.



"The truth of the matter is, it is going to become a subject, if, in fact, there's a 40 per cent shortfall in recruitment. It's just a reality," he said.



The comment came after the Department of Defence announced the army had missed its recruiting goal for May by 1661 recruits, or 25 per cent. Similar losses have been reported by army officials every month since February.



Experts said the latest figure was misleading because the army had quietly lowered its May recruitment target from 8050 to 6700 people. It has been suggested the real shortfall is closer to 40 per cent.



Since October, the shortfall in recruits has been put at more than 8000 people, which amounts to the loss of about a modern brigade.



The army, navy and marine corps reserves also fell short of their monthly goals by 18 per cent, six per cent and 12 per cent respectively, according to the latest figures.



Recruitment at the Army National Guard was down 29 per cent, while the Air National Guard fell short 22 per cent.



The United States abandoned the military draft in 1973, following mass protests during the Vietnam War, and switched to an all-volunteer force.


Mandatory registration for the draft was suspended in 1975, but resumed in 1980 after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. About 13.5 million men are now registered with the US Government as potential draftees.



During the 2004 election campaign, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry repeatedly accused President George W. Bush of planning to re-instate "a back-door draft", charges the president vehemently denied.



But while admitting that restoring the draft would be politically "very difficult," Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said something would have to be done because the situation with recruitment was not likely to improve.



"If you think you have trouble getting recruits today, you're going to have far more trouble six months from now," he predicted on CBS's Face the Nation.


"It is not going to get better. That's going to get worse."



Republican Representative Curt Weldon called the recruitment shortfalls "troublesome" and "unacceptable".



But he urged the military "to find ways to fix the current system" and to attract more recruits with the help of new incentives.



Nearly 1900 US troops have been killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere since the beginning of the war on terror in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks.



Copyright 2005 Nationwide News



http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1274&storyid=3278264 (http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1274&storyid=3278264)

Polaris
Wednesday, June 15th, 2005, 05:44 AM
I am not afraid to fight for my land. Fear of death is what disheartens me. :~(

Nordic Dream Maiden
Wednesday, June 15th, 2005, 03:02 PM
The draft can come and the bottom line is that Iraq will be always warring. US can occupy it for a century and they will have the same amount of control or less. Iraq has time on their side and the younger Iraqi generation has no love for the americans.

It would be very interesting to see how the draft is going to work on those who say they are gay/bisexual, have mental/physical conditions, on the social/economic classes (e.g., Bush daughters) as well as the men vs. women ratio of draftees. I smell lawsuits a mile away.

Polaris
Wednesday, June 15th, 2005, 06:04 PM
Bush should just stop with this pointless invasion.

I have always supported the battle in Iraq, but the United States' "restoration" project of this awful country is not helping at all. That country is too unstable and atrocious for a democracy. They were better off in that mess of oppression with Saddam Hussein than attempting practice of a civilised form of government.

As for the draft, the military is going to have to let go of their biases and face the facts: we have no army, we need all the men and women we can get into the ranks.

In my view Iraq is finished, they should just leave the damn country alone and quit tinkering with it. Our nation has lost enough men already in the battlefiled.