US Draft no matter who wins

mycroft

Just came across the excellent project censored site

http://www.projectcensored.org

It looks likely no matter who wins the election that the US will be re-introducing the draft by the middle of next year

the Bush Administration, and the Pentagon have been quietly moving to fill draft board vacancies nationwide in order to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. In preparation several million dollars have been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget. The SSS Administration must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation.

With troops stretched to the limit and no end in sight the draft may be the only answer. It will also mean a sharp increase in casualties, the majority of US casualties in Vietnam were among the poorly trained and inexperienced drafted soldiers.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era remember. College and Canada will no longer be options.

I guess the Alabama air national will be getting a surge of recruits from the sons and daughters of this adminstration.

the Selective Service System's proposal to draft women and extend the draft registration age from 25 to 34 has been uncovered

Whats fascinating is the story isn't be discussed in the mainstream media. Neither Bush nor Kerry would touch the question with a pole, but surely some mainstream news service would consider this story has some merit in the weeks running up to an election

Meh

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

ChipZilla

That was in the news last November:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm

They knew back they needed fresh meat, and loads of it.

Lucky for Bush and co. that American voters have the attention span of a goldfish, eh?






And on a totally unrelated note, a Newsweek poll last week found that 42% of still believe Saddam was behind 9/11:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000628367

WTF?

ChipZilla

Meh wrote:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

http://www.sss.gov/

Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25.

Um yeah, like I'd take Bush's word that "there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq". Well, he would say that before an election anyway, wouldn't he?

mycroft

Meh.

You'll notice that it doesn't say than 100% positive that it's not true for example

"The draft would be the Army's worst nightmare," said retired Lt. Col. Leonard Wong, now a research professor at the U.S. Army War College at Carlisle Barracks. "We have a high quality Army because we have people who want to be in it. Our volunteer force is really a professional force. You can't draft people into a profession."

Thats entirely true it is the last thing the US want, but with 130,000 reservists making up the bulk of US troops in Iraq, and over 75% of all US troops sent home from Iraq suffering from mental health issues coming from these ranks, it seems likely that many of these will not re enlist voluntarly.

Even if the draft started up again, it might be of a much more limited nature than in previous years, with only those who could fill specialized positions in certain fields (e.g., health care, linguistics, computer technology) being conscripted.

That seems likely how it will start, limited to young single people in vital fields, but y'know, those are key highly trained people sought after in business, so they'll object. And furthermore if the US is going to be in Iraq for years the full conscription route seems more and more pausible.

Finally not to be cyncial but....

About 10,000 to 12,000 people serve 20-year terms as unpaid board members. [Selective Service spokesman Pat] Schuback said because the current board system was set up in 1979, and the bulk of volunteers stayed the full 20 years, many of the appointments expired beginning in 1999.

Pentagon officalys obfuscating the truth...... :rolleyes:

chewy

american soldiers believe they ahve already been drafted as they haven't been able to return home at there usual rotation a couple of months back...


then the selective draft is already in place, calling up doctors and engineers to go to iraq

for some reason i think it'll be easier for kerry to get the draft then bush you know the friendly face of the democrats

xm15e3

mycroft wrote:

Just came across the excellent project censored site




With troops stretched to the limit and no end in sight the draft may be the only answer. It will also mean a sharp increase in casualties, the majority of US casualties in Vietnam were among the poorly trained and inexperienced drafted soldiers.

Just a couple of quick, non-intuitive, points:

2/3rds of solders in Vietnam were volunteers (I’ve read numbers as high as 85%). 70% of deaths were volunteers. Conscripts are more likely to end up as “REMFs”.

http://www.vietnam-war.info/myths/

Since Vietnam, the US military resists draftees like the plague. They destroy moral both in the service and at home, they are typically less educated, and usually lack the discipline of the professionals. This is why the Marines refuse to take conscripts.

The ONLY bills in congress that would resurrect the draft were introduced by leftist democrats (S. 89 Ernest Hollings D-SC, HR. 163 Charles Rangle D-NY). IMO, they would love to push the draft on the military, it would help their anti-war efforts more that it would the war effort. The only way I see these bills getting out of committee is if the Dems win majorities in both house and senate, and have Kerry in place to sign. That’s a long shot.

The military is meeting quotas for recruiting and retention at this time. This is nothing unusual, enlistment is almost always aided by war. Ironically, enlistment was down prior to 9-11. And yes, Clinton had stop-loss policies in effect during the Kosovo Screwup.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/05/mil-040526-usa02.htm

http://www.cnn.com/US/9905/26/air.force.retire/

Also, ANG pilots flew over 55K combat hours in vietnam. NG duty was used to avoid vietnam for some, but not for pilots.

sovtek

xm15e3 wrote:

The military is meeting quotas for recruiting and retention at this time.

A percentage of the Army Guard retention numbers include involuntary extensions due to Stop Loss, National Guard officials said. "

http://www.afpc.randolph.af.mil/pahistory/release/2001/10/Stop%20Loss%20office.htm

"Stop Loss applies to the more than 11,000 people previously approved to retire or separate from active duty between Oct. 2 and April 30."

xm15e3

sovtek wrote:

A percentage of the Army Guard retention numbers include involuntary extensions due to Stop Loss, National Guard officials said. "

http://www.afpc.randolph.af.mil/pahistory/release/2001/10/Stop%20Loss%20office.htm

"Stop Loss applies to the more than 11,000 people previously approved to retire or separate from active duty between Oct. 2 and April 30."

True, but your link is also from Oct. 2001. We weren't even in Afgahnistan with conventional troops. Most of those effected by that order have returned home, and if they re-enlisted, have probably been re-deployed by now.

As of now, the military isn't having any problem keeping people (as per the my link above). IIRC, there are some targeted stop-loss orders for key skills. The bottom line is, we aren't ven close to needing a draft. But it's a nice tools to scare some un-informed voters, and mobilize the anti-war vote. That is why you don't see GOP (or even military) support for these bills.

Captain Trips

I wouldn't say they will jump in and have a draft next year, but the troops in Hamburg playing cards will probably find themselves in Iraq next year (or Syria? Iran?) so the reservists and regulars can go home (finally).

WHat I don't understand with the ramping up of available bodies is the correlation with collapsing dollar and spiralling national debt. Unless a) they want to bancrupt the US b) want to bankrupt the banks (! is this even possible - most of the debt is owed to european banks) c) something else.

All in all, we live in interesting times.

chewy

xm513e the democrats arn't anti-war?

xm15e3

chewy wrote:

xm513e the democrats arn't anti-war?

The Democrats that have been pushing the Draft bills are very anti-war. The Draft issue is a tool to weaken domestic support for the war. It isn't needed, nor wanted, by the military.

Hobbes

Meh wrote:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp

I have also seen news reports of schools being denied funding unless they let military recruiters on the campus.

The snopes one refers to two bills. The project censored news investigation relates to a number of things.

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/24.html

The news reports are kept up to date on the subject in question.

You know this is going to be like Iraq where your going to have people saying "Told you so".

The Democrats that have been pushing the Draft bills are very anti-war. The Draft issue is a tool to weaken domestic support for the war. It isn't needed, nor wanted, by the military.

Sorry but that total bull. The US military is already overstreched with people who shouldn't be in Iraq being there, and ones who are there staying longer then they should.

If the US plans to invade Iran, it is going to need more troops. Although any further invasions are going to be seen as an all out act of war against the rest of the world.

xm15e3

Hobbes wrote:

Sorry but that total bull. The US military is already overstreched with people who shouldn't be in Iraq being there, and ones who are there staying longer then they should.

If the US plans to invade Iran, it is going to need more troops. Although any further invasions are going to be seen as an all out act of war against the rest of the world.

If it's "total bull" than back it up with numbers. Who, in the US military "shouldn't be in Iraq" according to the conditions of service they volunteered for? How are we overstretched? How many are we deficient? How many do we need to invade Iran? How many troops do we have sitting idle around the world? How about numbers leaving the military vs. numbers entering?

adjodlo

LOL.
and they say americans ARENT stupid...




Oh wait they dont! :rolleyes: