The Coming Bush Draft?

[CVX]

If Bush is reelected in 2004, we may be able to count on a military draft in 2005.

Let's look at earlier stories and quotes:

“A bill has been introduced] that would require that all males and females between the ages of 18 and 26 perform two years of ‘service.’ …any draftees that were not needed by the military would be assigned to a civilian job that, ‘as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security.’”-- Draft Notices, Nov.-Dec., 2003

“In line with today's needs, the Selective Service System's structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered toward maintaining a national inventory of American men and, for the first time, women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on identifying individuals with critical skills.”-- Selective Service System proposal, 2/11/03; quoted in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 5/1/04

“$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. SSS must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation.”-- Adam Stutz, Project Censored, 1/28/04

“A little-noticed provision in a new federal education law requires high schools to provide names, addresses, and phone numbers of students to military recruiters. Schools that refuse to comply face losing federal education funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.”-- Boston Globe, 11/21/02 (Now you know what they mean by “No Child Left Behind”.)

“If a military draft were to return, it would not be the same as during the Vietnam War. Because of the widespread concern that sons in wealthy and politically connected families can easily avoid the draft, no educational exemptions are expected this time, except to allow the completion of a term or for a senior to complete the year. Because of the extensive completion of extradition treaties, for example, the 2001 Smart Border Declaration, escaping to Canada or Sweden, or about any other country, would not be an option.”-- Carol Van Houten, The Register-Guard, 6/25/04

"The official view from the Pentagon is that all is going well in Iraq and that the US forces are more than ready to continue the global war against terrorism….The reality is that US forces are now severely overstretched and the number of their military commitments worldwide is increasing by the day.”-- Jane's Intelligence Digest, August 2003

“[VP Cheney] has said the US is considering military or other action against ‘40 to 50 countries’ and warns that the new war may last 50 years or more.”-- John Pilger, Daily Mirror, 1/29/02

“[…the active Army would be unable to sustain an occupation force of the present size beyond March 2004 if it chose not to keep individual units deployed to Iraq for longer than one year without relief.”-- Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, quoted on BuzzFlash.com, 12/23/03

“We've failed to convince our allies to send troops, we've extended deployments so morale is sinking, and the president is saying we can't cut and run. So what's left? …at some point, we're going to need more troops, and at that point the only way to get them will be a return to the draft.”-- Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Salon.com, 11/3/03

“We're not going to reimplement a draft. There is no need for it at all.”-- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/7/03 (Translated: “The draft will start right after Bush is reelected.”)

“Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!”-- Adam Stutz, Project Censored, 1/28/04

[anastrophe]

well, according to factcheck.org (thank you, plazul, for an excellent resource!)



http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=200

[xlt66]

This is good to know - factcheck that is!

[anastrophe]

plazul wrote: You're welcome. Factcheck doesn't have everything but they're one of the better sources.



I'm not going to say that national service is a bad idea. Democrats and Republicans have argued that young people should give something back in appreciation for their blessings but it's easy for an old fart like me to volunteer somebody else.



I oppose reinstating draft as a scheme for war.
word for word, i agree with you.

[gmc]

I oppose reinstating draft as a scheme for war.


Not being amrican this obviously doesn't concern me but since most of the present encumbents seemed to have dodged the draft when it was their time is this not ever so little a bit hypocritical?

They try this in the UK the opposition would be incredible

[Tombstone]

Some updated news from ABC:

US running short of reserve troops: report

The United States military may run out of national guard and reserve troops for the war on terrorism because of existing limits on involuntary mobilisations, a congressional watchdog agency warned in a report released overnight (AEST).

Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the US Government has considered changing the policy to make members of the 1.2 million-strong guard and reserve subject to repeated involuntary mobilisation, so long as no single mobilisation exceeds 24 consecutive months.

http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/pr ... 200173.htm

[gmc]

What's wrong with america? The only way you will need more troops is if you attack somebody else and if you had had the sense not to antagonise all your allies in the first place there would have been other nationalities troops available, many with considerable experience of fighting terrorism or working in hostile urban environments. The trouble in Iraq is you are using the same tactics the israelis do and they just don't work.

[anastrophe]

Warsai wrote: I am in support of drafts, people should fight for the country that they live in, especially in America when so much freedom is granted to you. The people should be proud to fight.



Except now.



I am in support of drafts, but I don't support this one. This is a senseless and unnecessary war. I don't believe in this war, and as a result, I don't believe in this draft.i think you're asking to have it both ways. either you're in support of a draft, or you're not. you can't say you support a draft except when you disagree with a particular war. well, of course, you *can* say it, but it's totally inconsistent.



i'm against drafts, at all times. i agree that people should serve, and fight for their country. but if you force people serve in the military, then much of what makes this country free is lost - the very essence of this country is freedom - not mandatory labor in service to 'the motherland'.



if a war is just, then people will volunteer. even if a war is unjust, those with a strong sense of duty will serve. as it stands, that's how it is now. there is no draft in the U.S. at this time, and there is none planned, contrary to the conspiracy theories floating around. those who are fighting in iraq are *volunteers*.



i have to take special notice of the following:



especially in America when so much freedom is granted to you. this is a common misconception. our freedom in this country is not "granted" to us. our freedom is a priori. Our Constitution does not "grant" us rights - it codifies and acknowledges the rights we hold innately. The constitution also codifies the limits on the powers that we grant to the government. the government most assuredly does not grant us our freedom.

[Accountable]

Yes, I've been dredging. Thought this would be an interesting debate to stir up again.plazul;4361 wrote: I'm not going to say that national service is a bad idea. Democrats and Republicans have argued that young people should give something back in appreciation for their blessings but it's easy for an old fart like me to volunteer somebody else.
I don't like the idea of the government making parental decisions such as how a person should show appreciation.

[RedGlitter]

Accountable;665426 wrote: Yes, I've been dredging. Thought this would be an interesting debate to stir up again.

I don't like the idea of the government making parental decisions such as how a person should show appreciation.


I am in full agreement with you, Accountable. That sounds a bit Orwellian to me. Wouldn't it make more sense to have people in the military who more or less want to be there for their own reasons than to have people who are just biding their time because they've been forced to be there? And maybe they don't feel "blessed" anyway (and they're allowed to feel that way), should they still have to show appreciation?

I don't like this idea at all. Entirely too much governmental control.

[Accountable]

I found some real meat for this debate:



The All-Volunteer Military: Issues and Performance



This is a study just published by the Congressional Budges Office (CBO). I just got it in the email, so I haven't read it yet.