The Draft

[TickTockMan]

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.

Story taken from here.

I'm looking for more sources on this because this is the only link I have. I find it hard to believe that they would try something like this at this time but our government does suprise the hell out of me at times.

[Triniant]

Hey there TickTockMan,

I have a good feeling that the good ole United States is going to implement the draft once again. Here are some links to start you out:

DRAFT 1

DRAFT 2

DRAFT 3

DRAFT 4

Start with www.rense.com and it will lead you to other sites to get more info.

[Stamford]

Can't see this happening kids.

One good way of losing an election would be to implement the draft.

Of course, one good terrorist hit on the USA and people may start rallying around the flag again.

Certainly won't be happening here in the UK; Blair's on a hiding to nothing if he does!!

[reese2]

The US government will not be implementing the draft. They have an over abundance of military folk now, that they claim they can barely pay for. It just isn't going to be happening. RENSE.COM isn't the most reliable source for information.

Reese

[Fluffybunny]

The US government will not be implementing the draft. They have an over abundance of military folk now,

That isn't the case actually. The US military is stretched thin by the fiasco in Iraq. I recently read an article where they are having to resort to taking the desert training soldiers from Ft. Irwin California in order to resupply the shortages of soldiers in combat units in Iraq. We are also taking units from Korea.

There just aren't enough combat ready military soldiers to continue to fight a prolonged war in Iraq. We don't have the military we once did.

Hopefully we will get out soon enough, but if the fighting stretches out for years trying to stablize Iraq, I could see a definite problem trying to get enough trained fighting soldiers. We have had a lot of injuries that have taken thousands of soldiers out of the fighting for good, as well as lots of deaths.

Those soldiers have to be replaced at some point. The reserves of combat trained soldiers is definately dwindling. I would hope it doesn't come to drafting, but if we stay in the region for an extended period of time with our current attrition rate, I would be worried.

[reese2]

Look, not to come off strong on you here, but I live the military life, so I know firsthand, we have more than enough military. Just because there aren't, supposedly, enough 'combat trained' men and women, doesn't mean the bodies aren't there to be trained to do just that.. Believe me, more than reading something somewhere, there are plenty of military personel. Training, and the need for it, is something all together different. There will not be a draft.

Reese

[reese2]

The US military is stretched thin by the fiasco in Iraq.

Just to add something on this one.. There is but a small fraction of our troops in Iraq. It doesn't even come close to stretching us thin. Believe that.. They may need to cross train some, but there are plenty of bodies to be able to do just that.

Reese

[DC09]

Snopes.com

[Stamford]

They may need to cross train some, but there are plenty of bodies to be able to do just that.

Maybe 'bodies' is an unfortunate word to use in this instance?

[reese2]

Thanks Kellalor!

[reese2]

They may need to cross train some, but there are plenty of bodies to be able to do just that.

Maybe 'bodies' is an unfortunate word to use in this instance?

Not really. Unless of course you are being too literal, and trying to pick a fight. But, you wouldn't do that, now would you?

Reese

[Triniant]

I really have to side with fluffybunny on this one. To say that there are enough troops to maintain in Iraq, I think is an overstatement. The USA has so many commitments around the world that if they decided to concentrate on Iraq alone they would possibly give up some rather important areas. For example there is US military in several countries in Africa, almost the entire Middle East, Europe, the Balkans, Southeast and Southwest Asia, East Asia, and Latin America, not to mention the US itself. If America thins out its military presence, it is liable to weaken its hold on power around the globe. Besides that, it might invite others to take a chance.

Now let's look at South Korea, they are sending the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division, 2,000 to 3,000 soldiers. Now that is 2-3 thousand less on the DMZ. The division only has about 14,000 altogether, so that is a nice chunk. Why would they take personnel from an already forward deployed area to Iraq if the US didn't need more military? Unless they really believe that communist North Korea does not intend to attack, ever.

I am not saying that the draft will happen, but the possibility is strong.

Edited May 28, 2004 by Triniant

[Stamford]

Not really. Unless of course you are being too literal, and trying to pick a fight. But, you wouldn't do that, now would you?

I'm a lover not a fighter!!

I was beinng ironic; as the handover in June is not going to lessen the need for Coalition troops in Iraq and the uprisings are continuing unabated, that is exactly what a lot of these young men are going to be.

[reese2]

I really have to side with fluffybunny on this one.

Ok, Triniant. You can if you want, but then that would mean you would be uninformed, as well...

I think you both are not seeing the big picture here, and that is fine, let me see if I can make you understand. I will keep it on a simple level to do just that.

We have an OVER ABUNDANCE of military personnel. So much so, that they are not able to be given raises in their due course. (Rates are over packed, so much so, that people in the military are forced to take jobs that they don't want, waiting while their choosen rates open up.)

Implementing a draft of any kind would mean that we, the US, needed extra 'BODIES' (Just for you Stamford, you little lover man) we do not need any more military, as it stands at this moment. We have miliions that are on standby, as well as shore duties everywhere. Now, cross training them for combat is what you all are talking about. Sure, there is a huge chunk not combat trained, but it does not mean that the 'bodies' are not there to be trained, if need be. Since 9-11 there has been an influx of people signing on to the military. We have seen the biggest jump in military since the draft was implemented so long ago. Why would we ever have a draft, when there are so many willing to join?

Please, before you say that you know something, do a little checking.

Reese

Edited May 28, 2004 by reese2

[Triniant]

We have an OVER ABUNDANCE of military personnel.

Where are these people? If you mean the reserves, they are rotating through the various deployment theaters (Iraq, Bosnia, Afgan...etc.). If you mean the National Guard, there still are the state militas and Homeland Security. If you mean all active duty military personnel stationed in the US (aside from the units in deployment rotation) then what happens if the US is attacked?

Just because the pay does not reflect the jobs being done, (well done I must say) it does not necessarily mean that there is an "overabundance of troops" as you say. It is costing the government billions to maintain in Iraq.

Sure, there is a huge chunk not combat trained, but it does not mean that the 'bodies' are not there to be trained, if need be.

In the US military, they train on combat first (basic training) regardless of the job that is assigned later.

Edited May 28, 2004 by Triniant

[Stamford]

(Just for you Stamford, you little lover man)

Heh, less of the 'little' if you don't mind

Back to the serious issue, Reece, you obviously are in the know, but do you think training non-combat troops for frontline action is a good thing?

I guess it is better than drafting and sending those poor soles into the lion's den, but even so, this would not be a good thing, right?

[reese2]

Where are these people? If you mean the reserves, they are rotating through the various deployment theaters (Iraq, Bosnia, Afgan...etc.). If you mean the National Guard, there still are the state militas and Homeland Security. If you mean all active duty military personnel stationed in the US (aside from the units in deployment rotation) then what happens if the US is attacked?

You are completely confusing 'trained' combat military persons, with the amount of over all military persons. We could have troops deployed in every war torn country, and still maintain security, with enough military stationed here in the US. The reserves are just that, the RESERVES. They go first for a reason. Then it goes in waves. They are rotated out. But, rest assured that there WILL NOT be a draft. We have an over abundance of military to handle almost anything. The only country that comes close to having a large military such as ours is China or South Korea. (Only because in their countries, it serves them well, as they are paid well compared to the normal economic status of civilians, or they are forced to join.) (Excluding their scientists and such.) We have military personnel that sit in classrooms, if need be, they would be trained to go to combat. It just would absolutely not be an economically sound decision to pull straight civilians from the US into the military and have to train them from scratch, when there are military personnel that could be trained to less degrees. Do you understand this; what I am saying at all? Why train thousands of people how to load and fire a gun, when there are thousands that already have that part down pat. (As you said, there is basic knowledge of this done in Boot Camp, or Basic Training)

Oh Triniant, please tell me that your head isn't so thick that you cannot listen to reason, and learn a little something in the process....

Heh, less of the 'little' if you don't mind

So sorry to cut you SHORT on that one.. hehehehe.... Won't happen again Mr. longfellow....

Back to the serious issue, Reece, you obviously are in the know, but do you think training non-combat troops for frontline action is a good thing?

I guess it is better than drafting and sending those poor soles into the lion's den, but even so, this would not be a good thing, right?

The need for a great, great amount of frontline troops, in this day and age, is seriously low, compared to the way wars used to be fought. But, yes, it makes better sense to train already signed military, than to get Joe Schmo off the streets, and train him from scratch.. You are talking just basics that you would have to train someone off the streets to even be able to carry the packs, on the front lines. Even the proper way to lace their boots would take a good two hours to get them to learn. See, all of those basic things would be in the heads of dormant shore duty personnel, not civilians.. You have to think economics here, instead of just 'bodies' trained. You have to think about who would be less cost and faster to train. It definately wouldn't be the civilians.

Reese

[Triniant]

Reese2, I think you and I have valid arguments. You are right, for the current situation the US does have enough of what it needs to suffice. I think where you and I bumped heads, is the fact that I jumped to thinking about what would happen if the US got involved in another major conflict, e.g. North Korea; than I responded. My mistake, I am sorry for that confusion. I guess my head was rather thick at the time .

Let me go back and say “if” the US was to experience another front, then the draft would be a strong possibility. I do not believe the US would have enough to maintain and win out against a foe like North Korea, whilst holding true to their worldwide obligations, without a draft that is.

I would like to hear your thoughts or arguments on this, reese2. Thanks.

[moe eubleck]

Thing about the draft is that it is all too easy to dodge. Remember the hippies? With the "dont ask dont tell" policy firmly in place, dodging draft will no longer require hiding in Canada . A few well timed winks in the shower room during boot camp should suffice.

[madelyne]

I am leaning to agree with Triniant as well, altho I am not in the military some close relations are. My friend had just came back from afganistan and was in the reserves. Only a couple months later his unit in the reserves was called up. He told them he had just gotten back so they said he didn't have to go. Much to my happiness. If they have a surplus they whats with all the join the army ads, and why would the government even start thinking about the draft? It just doesn't make sense. Also there are alot of units that were supposed to be coming home but are now being told they have to stay even longer.

[reese2]

If they have a surplus they whats with all the join the army ads, and why would the government even start thinking about the draft? It just doesn't make sense.

It is called MARKETING.. Like any business, they still need employees to run successfully. And, exactly where did you hear and by whom that the government was 'thinking' about the draft. (Web site banter hardly constitutes definate word from the Gov't.)

Also there are alot of units that were supposed to be coming home but are now being told they have to stay even longer

Look, that is just the way it is sometimes. Things get extended. It could be a multitude of reasons. Often times it just makes better sense to extend deployments, and have them move in longer waves, in and out.

Glad that I finally see why you were being so stubborn, Triniant...

Going up against a force such as N. Korea would be a hard call on whether we would be prepared. But, overall, I think we do have enough military personnel. We would then just have to wrorry about training them ALL for many combat systems.

Reese

[madelyne]

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.

I got it from the first post. And where do you get all of your information?

[Triniant]

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year

Here are links to both of those bills:

Bills S89 and HR163

Make sure to type in either S89 and/or HR163 at search feature named "bills".

Edited May 30, 2004 by Triniant

[The Raven]

If there is a draft, bye bye USA, I'm going to Canada (Hey, I'm real close to it). Sure I'm not of age YET, but I will be in several years. I don't even like the USA that much, a lot of it annoyies me, and the President? That is another story. If there is a draft, Kerry will win by a landslide. People don't like the war period, having to draft because of it will cause an outrage, plus I don't want my brother going to war.

The US already has WAY to many people there (over 130,000 troops) then needed, I don't see why we need more than 50,000. Iraq's militias and anyone that is against us is so outnumbered and out trained, 1 Iraq Soldier for every what, 80 americans? We have wasted so much money in Iraq, the total national debt is nearing 6 Trillion Dollars in all, about 2 trillion of it caused by the excessive force in the war on terror. If the USA keeps going the way it is going, we will be past double digit trillion dollar debt in the next few years. I do not see how a debt that large is good for an economy, even a thriving and mighty one like the USA. I see some real bad things happening if we draft which will get us MORE in debt, and MORE hated by our own people.

Ideas on the topic with fanatical reasoning: The United States is calling for a draft because they plan to build an even larger army to start WWIII and have the title of world dominator. The USA plans to build a massive army to have a force larger than D-Day to raid Europe and counquer the world, along with the excess of troops in the middle east. President Bush is the next Adolf Hitler...you will see.

Edited May 30, 2004 by The Raven

[Mekorig]

well, i dont like Mr. Bush, but i think that you idea is a bit extreme, isnt it?