News: US militery draft is back (I'm not joking)

[minsue]

I wonder how much of Kerry being raked over the coals for his percieved Anti-militarisim has to do with that? The way the political winds are blowing right now, it seems that politicians are suddenly getting very concious of how thier voting record on military deployment & spending can be spun against them.

-Colly

There's not enough spin in the world to forgive this one.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Text of S 89
Sponsor/Co-sponsor(s) 1
--- Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC)

Text of HR 163
Sponsor/Co-sponsor(s) 15
Jan. 07, 2003 Rep. Fortney Stark (D-CA)
Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Jan. 07, 2003 Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
Jan. 07, 2003 Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY)
Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)
May. 19, 2004 Rep. Donna Christensen (D-VI)
Jan. 07, 2003 Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. James Moran (D-VA)
--- Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO)
Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
Jan. 07, 2003 Rep. John Lewis (D-GA)
Jan. 28, 2003 Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL)

Thanks Min. I obviously have much digging to do to see how this compares to drafts in the past, but so far it stinks to high heavens. It just feels really dirty that the administration has been selling "We got him! Mission accomplished! Success is ours, you can feel safe now!" for so long that reinstating the draft is a direct contradiction of that message. I wish they'd just settle on one damn lie so I could tell up from down these days.



~lucky

 

[minsue]

Thanks Min. I obviously have much digging to do to see how this compares to drafts in the past, but so far it stinks to high heavens. It just feels really dirty that the administration has been selling "We got him! Mission accomplished! Success is ours, you can feel safe now!" for so long that reinstating the draft is a direct contradiction of that message. I wish they'd just settle on one damn lie so I could tell up from down these days.



~lucky

Lucky, all the sponsors are Dems.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Lucky, all the sponsors are Dems.

I shouldn't have quoted the whole post. I was just trying to respond to the general idea. Not the actual sponsors you listed.

Sowrry.

~lucky

 

[GodBlessTexas]

Interesting thread...

I have a theory as to why this hasn't been a big item in the news lately. I obviously don't know what others think, but here's my story.

When I turned 18 in 1994, I registered with SSS like I was required to do. I didn't do it lightly, and I didn't do it thoughtlessly. Yes, it was law that I do it, but it caused some long, hard thoughts and deep reflections. The fact was that while there was no imminent wars or even threats of wars, by giving SSS my name, it could be just a matter of a few months before I might be getting a draft call.

That somber reality has been a part of my psyche ever since. I'm pretty sure that my SSS registration expired when I turned 25, but as we all know, maximum ages would almost certainly change with the reinstatement of a draft.

I guess the bottom line is that I have long considered and thought about the possibility of being drafted. The whole point of SSS is that you never know when the draft might be needed, so the government is going to make sure and be ready. I would hope that other Americans did not register with SSS with dismissive thoughts of, "Oh, it'll never happen." That's why for me, the possibility of the draft machine being fired back up isn't big news. I'll certainly be worried and upset if it does, but it's a possibility about which I've thought for a long, long time.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I hope you are right ...

Urban Warfare — house-to-house fighting is the NEW warfare.

Iraq has proven that the military cannot depend upon advanced theories in asymmetric attack with state-of-the-art munitions. House-to-house, hovel-to-rubble, street-by-street, hand-to-hand combat is called for and that requires a large force of expendable grunts — low-income, poorly-educated, with no political connections.

Just like Viet Nam!

House to house fighting is brutish, ugly bussiness. In France a few months after the Normandy breakout the 177th & elements of the 12th SS Panzer "Hitler yourth Division" fought a three day small unit action in a french town. Some units reported as much as 85% casualties.

The kind of carnage that kind of warfare engenders was in no small part responsible for the shaping of the U.S. program of bypasing urban centers on it's way to Baghdad. Depending on where you are fighting it might be neccessary at some point, but by and large today's commanders have an aversion to sending toops into such situations if it can be avoided.

On the reverse side of that coin is collateral damage. Close air support, and time on target artillery can make it significantly less costly in the lives of soldiers, but that can only be achieved at a sharp rise in the number of civilians killed and injured. In a strictly tactical sense, reduction of the buildings is more practical. Unfortuneatly, that's a purely military consideration and it seems more and more that politcal considerations are driving the scope of operations.

In that sense operations in Iraq are becoming errily similar to Vietnam.

-Colly

 

[minsue]

I shouldn't have quoted the whole post. I was just trying to respond to the general idea. Not the actual sponsors you listed.

Sowrry.

~lucky

My point was simply that blaming the Bush administration alone doesn't apply here. I don't know what kind of political games they're playing with people's lives again, but it's motherfucking Democrats that have put this bill out there.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I’m not at all as sanguine as Colleen is about this.

First of, the timing is just perfect: right after a presidential election. That’s exactly when you’d enact legislation like this: when it’s too late for the electorate to do anything about it and early enough in a new president’s term to give the voters time to forget about it or get used to is. So based on the timing, it looks like they’re serious.

Secondly, they do need men. Everywhere I look these days I see things about the commanders in Iraq and the Pentagon saying that they don’t have enough men to do the job and that the ploiticians are making this a mission impossible for them because they have a critical manpower shortage. These guys aren’t needed for combat roles but for policing, which has become the new military paradigm in Iraq and Afghanistan. We simply don’t have enough men in Iraq to do what needs to be done. (Remember the shortage in Abu Ghraib?)

I’m very surprised to see that only democrats are backing this bill. It seems to me that any and every politician would run screaming from this one, dem or republican. This is political suicide.

---dr.M.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I’m not at all as sanguine as Colleen is about this.

First of, the timing is just perfect: right after a presidential election. That’s exactly when you’d enact legislation like this: when it’s too late for the electorate to do anything about it and early enough in a new president’s term to give the voters time to forget about it or get used to is. So based on the timing, it looks like they’re serious.

Secondly, they do need men. Everywhere I look these days I see things about the commanders in Iraq and the Pentagon saying that they don’t have enough men to do the job and that the ploiticians are making this a mission impossible for them because they have a critical manpower shortage. These guys aren’t needed for combat roles but for policing, which has become the new military paradigm in Iraq and Afghanistan. We simply don’t have enough men in Iraq to do what needs to be done. (Remember the shortage in Abu Ghraib?)

I’m very surprised to see that only democrats are backing this bill. It seems to me that any and every politician would run screaming from this one, dem or republican. This is political suicide.

---dr.M.

It seems to me the kind of legislation one would propose into your second term. The timing of it, before the election truly has me puzzled. The list of democratic sponsors does as well.

I had a thought here doc, would really like your opinion. Could this be something of a posion pill? It's going to be highly unpopular, but considering how the GOP has pretty much cornered the market on patriotism, this surely presents a problem for them?

If you back it you will catch the fall out politically from just about everyone affected. If you don't back it, the dems could accuse you of not being serious about fighting the War on Terror?

It is extremely puzzling legislation, both for the wording, the sponsors & the timing.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

Who wants to die for George Bush's mistake?

---dr.M.

The Bush twins, of course.



Which is why the draft won't pass. Anna Quindlan wrote an article for Newsweek a few weeks ago and theorized that the draft proposal is a symbolic gesture by Democrats to prove that the war is still a job for the poor and the middle classes, not the children of political campaign contributors or the war hawks in Congress and the White House.

The reasons she thinks it won't pass: if the purpose of the draft is to assure that military service draws fairly from all segments of society, the first thing that will have to go is the college deferment. With all the flack recently about who served and who didn't (of the most visible figures in the current administration, only Colin Powell served) allowing the college deferment to stand would be a clear slap at the lower classes. Additionally, fairness will require that women be eligible for the draft, and the religious right will fight that tooth and nail.

Consider the obvious: with a truly fair draft, the Bush twins would go into the draft pool. Remove women from the equation, and eliminate the college deferment, and the sons and grandsons of Bechtel and Halliburton and Tyson Foods and the entire Energy Policy Taskforce will go into the pool right alongside this year's crop of inner city high school drop outs.

What are the chances of that being allowed to happen?

 

[shereads]

If you back it you will catch the fall out politically from just about everyone affected. If you don't back it, the dems could accuse you of not being serious about fighting the War on Terror?

Exactly.

 

[shereads]

The poison pill is already working. This was posted on another message board by a NY Times reader in response to a pro-draft editorial:

"If you support this war, but assume that Other People's Children should fight it, then you are worse than a hypocrite. If it's not worth your family fighting it, then it's not worth it, period. [color=dark red]The draft is the truest test of public support for the administration's handling of the war, which is perhaps why the administration is so dead set against bringing it back." [/color]

If you want to create hundreds of thousands of new anti-war protesters, the surest way to do it is to create the situation that existed during Vietnam, but without the "outs" that made the war palatable for the parents of the college-bound. This time around, the National Guard is not a way out, either.

 

[ruminator]

The Bush twins, of course.



Which is why the draft won't pass. Anna Quindlan wrote an article for Newsweek a few weeks ago and theorized that the draft proposal is a symbolic gesture by Democrats to prove that the war is still a job for the poor and the middle classes, not the children of political campaign contributors or the war hawks in Congress and the White House.

The reasons she thinks it won't pass: if the purpose of the draft is to assure that military service draws fairly from all segments of society, the first thing that will have to go is the college deferment. With all the flack recently about who served and who didn't (of the most visible figures in the current administration, only Colin Powell served) allowing the college deferment to stand would be a clear slap at the lower classes. Additionally, fairness will require that women be eligible for the draft, and the religious right will fight that tooth and nail.

Consider the obvious: with a truly fair draft, the Bush twins would go into the draft pool. Remove women from the equation, and eliminate the college deferment, and the sons and grandsons of Bechtel and Halliburton and Tyson Foods and the entire Energy Policy Taskforce will go into the pool right alongside this year's crop of inner city high school drop outs.

What are the chances of that being allowed to happen?

While I agree with the points you made, I think there are other forces at work as well. Many Democrats are supporting it and that's one reason it's been kept as quiet as it has. Both parties know that it will be necessary if we continue the path we're on. I would consider any Democrat(or Republican) who says that we need to increase the number of troops in Iraq already resigned to the reality of a draft.

I think it will be different and have pros and cons. I think we'll settle in with a period of mandatory service, but not all will be in the capacity of combat forces. Even Kerry has plans for a "period of national service" but military service overseas would be limited to very few. Maybe if a kid has connections, they won't have to go into battle even if everyone has to serve somehow.

I sense trouble (for us commoners) in their plans.

 

[ruminator]

The poison pill is already working. This was posted on another message board by a NY Times reader in response to a pro-draft editorial:

"If you support this war, but assume that Other People's Children should fight it, then you are worse than a hypocrite. If it's not worth your family fighting it, then it's not worth it, period. [color=dark red]The draft is the truest test of public support for the administration's handling of the war, which is perhaps why the administration is so dead set against bringing it back." [/color]

If you want to create hundreds of thousands of new anti-war protesters, the surest way to do it is to create the situation that existed during Vietnam, but without the "outs" that made the war palatable for the parents of the college-bound. This time around, the National Guard is not a way out, either.

But, if they had to, this administration could claim that it has been working to lay the foundation to reinstate conscription. They've been upgrading and readying the SSS boards and personnel.

At the same time, all of the politicos can cstay a safe distance from the true issues.....



<cartoon voice>..........those bastards

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The poison pill is already working. This was posted on another message board by a NY Times reader in response to a pro-draft editorial:

"If you support this war, but assume that Other People's Children should fight it, then you are worse than a hypocrite. If it's not worth your family fighting it, then it's not worth it, period. [color=dark red]The draft is the truest test of public support for the administration's handling of the war, which is perhaps why the administration is so dead set against bringing it back." [/color]

If you want to create hundreds of thousands of new anti-war protesters, the surest way to do it is to create the situation that existed during Vietnam, but without the "outs" that made the war palatable for the parents of the college-bound. This time around, the National Guard is not a way out, either.

There is one very chilling consideration. If the Dems propose it and the Gop votes for it we could have a draft back. I shudder to think what might happen if this administration returns and is provided with carte blanche to use force where ever they wish, without the size of the military acting as a moderating factor to their ambition.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

rumi, I agree that there will be a need for more troops if we Stay The Course (gag; choke) but as Mammy said to Scarlett O'Hara, "Askin' ain't gettin'." You're right about one thing, without a doubt: everybody in Congress is trying to think of a loophole for the children of the privileged right now, that won't look like a loophole for the children of the privileged. No easy task.

Here's the NY Times op-editorial that the person I quoted was responding to:
May 4, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

A War for Us, Fought by Them
By WILLIAM BROYLES Jr.

ILSON, Wyo. — The longest love affair of my life began with a shotgun marriage. It was the height of the Vietnam War and my student deferment had run out. Desperate not to endanger myself or to interrupt my personal plans, I wanted to avoid military service altogether. I didn't have the resourcefulness of Bill Clinton, so I couldn't figure out how to dodge the draft. I tried to escape into the National Guard, where I would be guaranteed not to be sent to war, but I lacked the connections of George W. Bush, so I couldn't slip ahead of the long waiting list. My attitude was the same as Dick Cheney's: I was special, I had "other priorities." Let other people do it.

When my draft notice came in 1968, I was relieved in a way. Although I had deep doubts about the war, I had become troubled about how I had angled to avoid military service. My classmates from high school were in the war; my classmates from college were not — exactly the dynamic that exists today. But instead of reporting for service in the Army, on a whim I joined the Marine Corps, the last place on earth I thought I belonged.

My sacrifice turned out to be minimal. I survived a year as an infantry lieutenant in Vietnam. I was not wounded; nor did I struggle for years with post-traumatic stress disorder. A long bout of survivor guilt was the price I paid. Others suffered far more, particularly those who had to serve after the war had lost all sense of purpose for the men fighting it. I like to think that in spite of my being so unwilling at first, I did some small service to my country and to that enduring love of mine, the United States Marine Corps.

To my profound surprise, the Marines did a far greater service to me. In three years I learned more about standards, commitment and yes, life, than I did in six years of university. I also learned that I had had no idea of my own limits: when I was exhausted after humping up and down jungle mountains in 100-degree heat with a 75-pound pack, terrified out of my mind, wanting only to quit, convinced I couldn't take another step, I found that in fact I could keep going for miles. And my life was put in the hands of young men I would otherwise never have met, by and large high-school dropouts, who turned out to be among the finest people I have ever known.

I am now the father of a young man who has far more character than I ever had. I joined the Marines because I had to; he signed up after college because he felt he ought to. He volunteered for an elite unit and has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. When I see images of Americans in the war zones, I think of my son and his friends, many of whom I have come to know and deeply respect. When I opened this newspaper yesterday and read the front-page headline, "9 G.I.'s Killed," I didn't think in abstractions. I thought very personally.

The problem is, I don't see the images of or read about any of the young men and women who, as Dick Cheney and I did, have "other priorities." There are no immediate family members of any of the prime civilian planners of this war serving in it — beginning with President Bush and extending deep into the Defense Department. Only one of the 535 members of Congress, Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota, has a child in the war — and only half a dozen others have sons and daughters in the military.

The memorial service yesterday for Pat Tillman, the football star killed in Afghanistan, further points out this contrast. He remains the only professional athlete of any sport who left his privileged life during this war and turned in his play uniform for a real one. With few exceptions, the only men and women in military service are the profoundly patriotic or the economically needy.

It was not always so. In other wars, the men and women in charge made sure their family members led the way. Since 9/11, the war on terrorism has often been compared to the generational challenge of Pearl Harbor; but Franklin D. Roosevelt's sons all enlisted soon after that attack. Both of Lyndon B. Johnson's sons-in-law served in Vietnam.

This is less a matter of politics than privilege. The Democratic elites have not responded more nobly than have the Republican; it's just that the Democrats' hypocrisy is less acute. Our president's own family illustrates the loss of the sense of responsibility that once went with privilege. In three generations the Bushes have gone from war hero in World War II, to war evader in Vietnam, to none of the extended family showing up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Pat Tillman didn't want to be singled out for having done what other patriotic Americans his age should have done. The problem is, they aren't doing it. In spite of the president's insistence that our very civilization is at stake, the privileged aren't flocking to the flag. The war is being fought by Other People's Children. The war is impersonal for the very people to whom it should be most personal.

If the children of the nation's elites were facing enemy fire without body armor, riding through gantlets of bombs in unarmored Humvees, fighting desperately in an increasingly hostile environment because of arrogant and incompetent civilian leadership, then those problems might well find faster solutions.

The men and women on active duty today — and their companions in the National Guard and the reserves — have seen their willingness, and that of their families, to make sacrifices for their country stretched thin and finally abused. Thousands of soldiers promised a one-year tour of duty have seen that promise turned into a lie. When Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, told the president that winning the war and peace in Iraq would take hundreds of thousands more troops, Mr. Bush ended his career. As a result of this and other ill-advised decisions, the war is in danger of being lost, and my beloved military is being run into the ground.

This abuse of the voluntary military cannot continue. How to ensure adequate troop levels, with a diversity of backgrounds? How to require the privileged to shoulder their fair share? In other words, how to get today's equivalents of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney — and me — into the military, where their talents could strengthen and revive our fighting forces?

The only solution is to bring back the draft. Not since the 19th century has America fought a war that lasted longer than a week with an all-volunteer army; we can't do it now. It is simply not built for a protracted major conflict. The arguments against the draft — that a voluntary army is of higher quality, that the elites will still find a way to evade service — are bogus. In World War II we used a draft army to fight the Germans and Japanese — two of the most powerful military machines in history — and we won. The problems in the military toward the end of Vietnam were not caused by the draft; they were the result of young Americans being sent to fight and die in a war that had become a disaster.

One of the few good legacies of Vietnam is that after years of abuses we finally learned how to run the draft fairly. A strictly impartial lottery, with no deferments, can ensure that the draft intake matches military needs. Chance, not connections or clever manipulation, would determine who serves.

If this war is truly worth fighting, then the burdens of doing so should fall on all Americans. If you support this war, but assume that Pat Tillman and Other People's Children should fight it, then you are worse than a hypocrite. If it's not worth your family fighting it, then it's not worth it, period. The draft is the truest test of public support for the administration's handling of the war, which is perhaps why the administration is so dead set against bringing it back.


William Broyles Jr., the founding editor of Texas Monthly, wrote the screenplay for "Cast Away."

 

[ruminator]

I’m not at all as sanguine as Colleen is about this.

First of, the timing is just perfect: right after a presidential election. That’s exactly when you’d enact legislation like this: when it’s too late for the electorate to do anything about it and early enough in a new president’s term to give the voters time to forget about it or get used to is. So based on the timing, it looks like they’re serious.

Secondly, they do need men. Everywhere I look these days I see things about the commanders in Iraq and the Pentagon saying that they don’t have enough men to do the job and that the ploiticians are making this a mission impossible for them because they have a critical manpower shortage. These guys aren’t needed for combat roles but for policing, which has become the new military paradigm in Iraq and Afghanistan. We simply don’t have enough men in Iraq to do what needs to be done. (Remember the shortage in Abu Ghraib?)

I’m very surprised to see that only democrats are backing this bill. It seems to me that any and every politician would run screaming from this one, dem or republican. This is political suicide.

---dr.M.

In all fairness, several of us on these boards have been trying to bring the issue up since the start of the war, but generally we were dismissed as alarmists.

It's not just the Democrats.

 

[shereads]

The select quote from the Times editorial, and the one that predicts the outcome of a proposal to reinstate the draft:

[color=dark red]"There are no immediate family members of any of the prime civilian planners of this war serving in it — beginning with President Bush and extending deep into the Defense Department. Only one of the 535 members of Congress, Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota, has a child in the war — and only half a dozen others have sons and daughters in the military."[/color]

 

[Guest]

**Story has been lurking in the media and internet for a least a couple months. E.g., the re-activation of local draft boards.

Phew! So, the Yanks are aware it's happening?

Thank fuck. I panicked when Sutherland who wrote the article mentioned there is a kind of media blockage due to this being erection year (humour, not dyslexic).

 

[ruminator]

The Draft will Start in June 2005
Date: 05-28-04 11:26

Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005

The Draft will Start in June 2005

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.

Please send this on to all the friends, parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and cousins that you know. Let your children know too -- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change!

Please also contact your representatives to ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills -- and contact newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story.


http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/05/29/4365861

 

[Guest]

More people should read John Updyke (humour).

Problem is not many people read books any more, not to mention understanding what they mean.

 

[rgraham666]

So there are five ways of knowing who will win. Those who know when to fight and when not to fight are victorious. Those who discern when to use many or few troops are victorious. Those whose upper and lower ranks have the same desire are victorious. Those who face the unprepared with preparation are victorious. Those whose generals are able and not constrained by their governments are victorious. These are the five ways to know who will win.

Sun Tzu - The Art of War

It looks like we're going to lose this one folks.

Here's a thought not yet bought up. Perhaps all these extra troops may not be needed for foreign adventures at all.

 

[Guest]

It looks like we're going to lose this one folks.

Here's a thought not yet bought up. Perhaps all these extra troops may not be needed for foreign adventures at all.

Damn! You make the art of posting so cool with so much ease!

Yea, L.A. sounds in real mess (on the street level).

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Damn, this means my nephew who just started nursing school will be drafted. I'll be heartsick if he does...

 

[rgraham666]

Arigato, Chilled.