Bush war adviser says draft worth a look

[questionmark]

Bush war adviser says draft worth a look

By RICHARD LARDNER

WASHINGTON - Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday.

"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."

"And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another," Lute added in his first interview since he was confirmed by the Senate in June.

President Nixon abolished the draft in 1973. Restoring it, Lute said, would be a "major policy shift" and Bush has made it clear that he doesn't think it's necessary.

Full story

[Oxymoron]

I have to agree with reconstituting the Draft we are in a Huge war all over the world we need flexibility to meet threats. I think best idea is to get people who want to come here from other countries to join up as a way of getting a green card we would get more then enough manpower plus solve the illegal issue.

[Lt_Ripley]

Dems tried to suggest the Draft be brought back in 2005. Dems were for it but cons weren't.

[Lt_Ripley]

I have to agree with reconstituting the Draft we are in a Huge war all over the world we need flexibility to meet threats. I think best idea is to get people who want to come here from other countries to join up as a way of getting a green card we would get more then enough manpower plus solve the illegal issue.

I agree with the illegal issue. I also think , like some countries , sevice should be mandatory for all able bodies people .

[artymoon]

The draft is always on the table during war times. No one has suggested otherwise.

[__Kratos__]

Dems tried to suggest the Draft be brought back in 2005. Dems were for it but cons weren't.

It was in 2006 and it was only really Charles Rangel as he introuduced the bill to the democrat controlled house. I don't think it made it.

[Lt_Ripley]

from Fox news so it must be true.

House Opposes Military Draft Bill

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

E-MAIL STORY RESPOND TO EDITOR PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION

WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly Tuesday against a bill to reinstate the military draft, a tool that had been used by Democrats to point out the inherent inequality of volunteer service.

The House voted 2-402 against suspending the debate and moving toward passage, meaning that the bill could be debated in perpetuity. The procedural motion is an action that prompts the sponsor of the legislation to pull it out of consideration.

Rep. Charles B. Rangel (search), D-N.Y., introduced the legislation in January 2003 in an effort to highlight what he saw as an ill-prepared and ill-advised Iraq policy. Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (search), D-S.C., pushed a similar bill in the Senate.

The legislation in both chambers declares that it is the obligation of every U.S. citizen and resident between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a two-year period of national service.

GOP leaders said that Rangel and Hollings introduced the bills with the sole intent of scaring people in an election season.

"This campaign is a baseless and malevolent concoction of the Democrat Party, and everyone in this chamber knows it. It has one purpose — to spread fear. To spread fear among an unsuspecting public, to undermine the War on Terror, to undermine our troops, to undermine our cause, and most of all, to undermine our commander in chief in an election year," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

The bills have lain dormant for nearly two years, but e-mails widely circulated on college campuses, which claimed that the Bush administration was trying to secretly revive the draft, prompted House Republicans to quash the issue by calling for a vote.

"Clearly these bills are filed not by Republicans, not on behalf of the administration, but by those who are being partisan Democrats about this and trying to scare people," said Sen. John Cornyn (search), R-Texas.

Rangel, however, did not act like he was kidding. He has been a vocal proponent of the draft, claiming that only mandatory national service would alleviate what he says are disproportionate numbers of working-class people and members of minority groups serving in the military.

"I believe in the draft and ... shared sacrifice," Rangel said.

Earlier Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said regardless of the political game played in the House, he had no intention of bringing the debate to the Senate floor.

"I can tell you it's not going to be addressed in the United States Senate. It is a non-issue and is not going to be addressed," Frist said.

The vote, which shows Republicans en bloc voting against any effort to bring back the draft, could help shut down Internet rumors that the Bush administration had a secret plan to reinstate the draft. The White House had said Bush would veto the measure if it passed.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134546,00.html

[__Kratos__]

from Fox news so it must be true.

You're just twisting now. 2 to 402 isn't "Dems were for it but cons weren't."

So I then assumed you were talking about the 2006 idea.. Which I have yet to see voted for because we don't have a draft despite the democrats control.

[Lt_Ripley]

You're just twisting now. 2 to 402 isn't "Dems were for it but cons weren't."

So I then assumed you were talking about the 2006 idea.. Which I have yet to see voted for because we don't have a draft despite the democrats control.

true dems introduced it but a majority led con congress ( and dems) voted against it. no this wasn't 2006 but House Opposes Military Draft Bill

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Edited August 11, 2007 by Lt_Ripley

[Lt_Ripley]

House overwhelmingly stomps out bill that would've reinstated draft

By Dave Moniz, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Moving to dismiss politically troublesome rumors that the war in Iraq could revive a military draft, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly defeated a bill Tuesday that would have restored mandatory service.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., had little support and no chance of passing. The Republican-controlled House held the vote to make sure it was defeated during a close presidential race in which talk of a draft has run rampant. The vote was 402-2.

During a testy debate, Republicans charged that Democrats had deliberately fueled rumors that the White House would reinstitute conscription after the election. Democrats countered that the Bush administration's conduct of the war has led many Americans to fear that a draft may be necessary to support an overtaxed military.

The vote came amid increasing concerns over whether the thinly stretched Army can continue to recruit and retain enough soldiers to fight the war against terror in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But despite a barrage of Internet chatter about the potential return of a draft, most experts say there is little chance of that happening.

"A return to the draft, in my mind, is extremely unlikely," said Bob Scales, a retired Army major general who has written histories of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq war.

President Bush and John Kerry have said that they oppose re-establishing a draft. The Pentagon did away with conscription and created an all-volunteer military three decades ago after the Vietnam War.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Democrats have in recent months been involved in a "hoax" to convince the public that the Bush administration had a secret, post-election plan for restoring the draft.

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the top Democrat on that committee, accused Republican leaders of holding the vote just for political gain.

"We have seen something I haven't seen in 28 years in the House of Representatives — someone bringing a bill to the House they don't support," Skelton said.

Rangel voted against his own bill because it was not subjected to hearings and testimony from Bush administration officials. "This is hypocrisy of the worst kind," he said. "I would not encourage any Democrat running for re-election to vote for this bill." Only Democratic Reps. John Murtha of Pennsylvania and Pete Stark of California voted for it.

Top military officials strongly oppose a return to conscription. During Vietnam, the military ranks included draftees who were not highly motivated and caused disciplinary problems, as well as a small number with criminal records. Senior officers cite the professionalism and quality of the all-volunteer U.S. force as the biggest reasons for not returning to involuntary service.

In the past two days, Bush and Kerry have distanced themselves further from a draft. Kerry told a crowd at a Tipton, Iowa, middle school Tuesday that "I will not reinstitute a draft." A day earlier, Bush told a crowd in Clive, Iowa, that "we will not have a draft as long as I am president of the United States."

David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland, said a return of the draft is extremely unlikely. But he said the issue has taken on "a life of its own" at colleges and high schools.

A poll taken last summer by Vietnam Veterans of America found that 58% of respondents thought the country could be headed for a draft in the near future. But 52% of those who would be eligible said they would not serve or would seek a deferment.

Rangel introduced his bill after criticizing the all-volunteer military for putting an unfair burden on lower-income groups, who join for job training or money to pay for college.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-05-draft_x.htm

[__Kratos__]

true dems introduced it but a majority led con congress ( and dems) voted against it. no this wasn't 2006 but House Opposes Military Draft Bill

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

No, only one or 2 dems did.

2006: Rangel Will Push To Bring Back The Draft

It never passed. Even then the majority of dems, I don't believe, didn't support it.

Edited August 11, 2007 by __Kratos__

[EmpressStarXVII]

But the surge is working.....why the need for a draft .

[__Kratos__]

But the surge is working.....why the need for a draft .

?

The surge is only to help combat violence and bring more stability to the capital. Even Gates said earlier this week it'll take a few more years that Iraq needs our help. We created this mess... We shouldn't clean it up according to you?

[Oxymoron]

But the surge is working.....why the need for a draft .

Because we need to be able to respond to other problems like Iran and possibly in the future Pakistan

[EmpressStarXVII]

?

The surge is only to help combat violence and bring more stability to the capital. Even Gates said earlier this week it'll take a few more years that Iraq needs our help. We created this mess... We shouldn't clean it up according to you?

Kratos, you know very well that is not what I meant. You're playing a Bob on me . Why not put in more troops is what I'm saying. If bush wanted to do the surge right, instead of 300,000 he should have added 500,000 or more. Not that I would support that at all, I don't like the idea of our soldiers being killed for a mess that will never end. Honestly, who believes insurgents will ever go away? But...since we are there, Bush shouldn't have ass it. If he wants a surge, put in a surge. I'm not sure how the draft process works. How much training do draftees get? Do they go through a 'shorter' boot camp term compared to our soldiers already enlisted? Would that be adequate and enough exposure?

[__Kratos__]

Kratos, you know very well that is not what I meant. You're playing a Bob on me . Why not put in more troops is what I'm saying. If bush wanted to do the surge right, instead of 300,000 he should have added 500,000 or more. Not that I would support that at all, I don't like the idea of our soldiers being killed for a mess that will never end. Honestly, who believes insurgents will ever go away? But...since we are there, Bush shouldn't have ass it. If he wants a surge, put in a surge. I'm not sure how the draft process works. How much training do draftees get? Do they go through a 'shorter' boot camp term compared to our soldiers already enlisted? Would that be adequate and enough exposure?

That's flaming! I'm not like Bob. *shudders*

He should have... Even the ground commanders wanted more that what they have now but the bloody dems wanted to cry and wipe their own butts so troops only got a less then moderate boost. Dems are out to stop this war, no matter how many human, Iraqi or American, lives are lost in the process. They don't give a damn about helping clean up the mess we created. They just want to get out and score some easy points while an ocean of blood created waves against our coasts. This is so much more then just a war against terrorists now in Iraq, and they are there, you cannot deny it, it's about the Iraqis. We cannot ditch 26 something million people and say "opps, our bad...see ya!" and leave them to suffer and die. It's just pathetic. It'a crappy that our American lives are messed with... Yes but we simply cannot forget about the so many other lives out there that need our help now thanks to our mistakes.

The object isn't to completely stop the terrorists there but to get them under control enough that the Iraqis can deal with them. This has happened time and time again... The US and Brits have both handed over areas of land to Iraqis so that they can take over. Even Iraqi forces are leading many of the anti-terror operations with multi-national backing. But hey, nobody gives a hoot about some Iraqis who want their country in peace times or even standing on it's own. They just want to ditch Iraq like a fat chick they picked up at a party and woke up with.

I don't know how the draft would work in this case as I haven't heard the details of his ideas of what he wants in a draft.

[el midgetron]

?

The surge is only to help combat violence and bring more stability to the capital. Even Gates said earlier this week it'll take a few more years that Iraq needs our help. We created this mess... We shouldn't clean it up according to you?

We didn't clean up our mess in vietnam. We let the Khmer Rouge take care of that. War is a "mess", isn't that how the pro-war people justify the death of our own troops?

[__Kratos__]

We didn't clean up our mess in vietnam. We let the Khmer Rouge take care of that. War is a "mess", isn't that how the pro-war people justify the death of our own troops?

We should have. Even thought Vietnam has many more resources then just oil then Iraq does. Iraq is even worse off without our support because they don't have those resources like Vietnam did. To justify the deaths of our troops, humans, to other humans for an entire country to be stable... You don't think we should help in the stabliziing? We're the ones that went into there blowing everything to hell and now we should just leave with an "opps!" behind us? I supported the war in the beginning... Then no wmd and I was sadden and distract... Now I just want Iraq to be stable for Iraqis who's lifes we've messed with so much over the last 4+ years... I thank the troops and the deeds done by them despite how unfavorible and how ungrateful the American people are too their mission... And I also see Iraqis as human beings that deserve more then just a withdrawal and to deal with the problems we created.

[el midgetron]

I just don't think we can stabilize Iraq without it taking a decade or more. Our troops are a de-stabilizing element, a bunch of American with target on their backs. Saddam was a brutal dictator and not even he had complete control of Iraq. I would like to see a stabilized Iraq but its costing lives, both our, our allies and iraqies (not to mention killing our economy). Will our efforts cost more lives or save more?

[__Kratos__]

I just don't think we can stabilize Iraq without it taking a decade or more. Our troops are a de-stabilizing element, a bunch of American with target on their backs. Saddam was a brutal dictator and not even he had complete control of Iraq. I would like to see a stabilized Iraq but its costing lives, both our, our allies and iraqies (not to mention killing our economy). Will our efforts cost more lives or save more?

Though me and others think Iraq can get stable enough so it can put it's crappy trained forces into force. We can't just toss them aside like trash despite the trash heap we have created due to our own problems with intelligence. The vast majority of Iraiqis are innocent people who just want a life to live. Should we deny them that because of our mistakes? Should we just ditch them because people don't think we can stablize Iraq in the time peroid they want with a magic wand? It'so focused on American lives rather then even rather Iraqi lives. Yes, it's their country and we screwed it up big time. They're human beings just like any other human any other major US city... So don't they deserve the same respect since we're the ones that caused their current problems?

[ninjadude]

Though me and others think Iraq can get stable enough so it can put it's crappy trained forces into force. We can't just toss them aside like trash despite the trash heap we have created due to our own problems with intelligence. The vast majority of Iraiqis are innocent people who just want a life to live. Should we deny them that because of our mistakes? Should we just ditch them because people don't think we can stablize Iraq in the time peroid they want with a magic wand? It'so focused on American lives rather then even rather Iraqi lives. Yes, it's their country and we screwed it up big time. They're human beings just like any other human any other major US city... So don't they deserve the same respect since we're the ones that caused their current problems?

In a word, yes. We have to leave. It's the only sensible solution. Whatever happens afterward needs to happen. Then it will stablize after that. It will happen sooner or later. They can and have been waiting a long time. 10 years is nothing when you've been waiting for hundreds. It's painful to have to admit that but we can't force a country's peoples to do something they clearly do not want to do. We can't make it better. If "W" had listened to those who actually study this stuff, he would have known that before invading a country (and occupying) that had nothing to do with 9/11. But God told him he was right. He should be in a mental institution or jail.

[Oxymoron]

In a word, yes. We have to leave. It's the only sensible solution. Whatever happens afterward needs to happen. Then it will stablize after that. It will happen sooner or later. They can and have been waiting a long time. 10 years is nothing when you've been waiting for hundreds. It's painful to have to admit that but we can't force a country's peoples to do something they clearly do not want to do. We can't make it better. If "W" had listened to those who actually study this stuff, he would have known that before invading a country (and occupying) that had nothing to do with 9/11. But God told him he was right. He should be in a mental institution or jail.

You sir are out of line this our president your talking about you might not agree but you have to respect. I dont want to get into the Saddam Al Queda connection again, but Iraq was our enemy we destroyed the treat, we will stay until the the country is stablized under our terms not theirs. And I hope traitors like you leave this country.

Edited August 12, 2007 by Oxymoron

[ninjadude]

You sir are out of line this our president your talking about you might not agree but you have to respect. I dont want to get into the Saddam Al Queda connection again, but Iraq was our enemy we destroyed the treat, we will stay until the the country is stablized under our terms not theirs. And I hope traitors like you leave this country.

Bull***t. I do not have to respect him. I am an American citizen. It is my God given right to disrepect our countries biggest fool. Our "enemy"? REALLY? they were defeated in the first Gulf war. Adversary mayyyybe. What did they do to become an enemy? Create non-existent WMD's? When did we declare war exactly that we get to dictate anything to a sovereign nation? I hope anti-american traitors like you get a clue and an education.

[Oxymoron]

Bull***t. I do not have to respect him. I am an American citizen. It is my God given right to disrepect our countries biggest fool. Our "enemy"? REALLY? they were defeated in the first Gulf war. Adversary mayyyybe. What did they do to become an enemy? Create non-existent WMD's? When did we declare war exactly that we get to dictate anything to a sovereign nation? I hope anti-american traitors like you get a clue and an education.

He was voted in by a democratic process if you dont respect him you dont respect our country or our Democrasy. What did you want him to lob a few small pox bombs at Israel for us to take action ohh I forgot you hate Israel as much as you hate the USA so you wouldnt mind would you.

[Bob26003]

How can you have a draft when the vast majority of Americans don't support the occupation.

How can you have a draft when the vast majority of Americans don't support the so called President.