Does Anyone Feel a Draft?

[Mephisto]

In spite of promises by the Bush administration (read his lips . . . ) it seems as though the only way for the U.S. to maintain current troop levels is to either A. suspend military discharges, B. get out of Iraq or C. reinstitute the draft.

Apparently military recruiters are having a tough time convincing young people to join (so they can fight in a war based on lies). Maybe young people in America aren't as stupid as we've been led to believe . . .
_________

" This recruitment shortfall has come despite offering the largest enlistment bonuses in Army history (up to $20,000 for a four-year contract) and spreads across all three components of the US Army, which include the reserves and National Guard."

http://americandaily.com/article/7831
______

" US Military Bracing for Recruitment Headaches


The US Army, its numbers seriously depleted by deployments in Iraq, foresees recruiting problems in the coming year and is offering big cash incentives to induce young people to sign up.

The Army recruitment wing, based in Fort Knox, Kentucky, foresees deploying hundreds of extra recruiters throughout the country.

"It's one of the tactics they are looking at, one of the tools, as we're looking for help for the next fiscal year," said Specialist Julia Bobick, public affairs officer at the Army recruiting command.

"We're definitely concerned about continuing to meet our mission," said Bobick, pointing to the US economic recovery and the situation in Iraq. "There's no national data on how the war is affecting it, but it certainly has an impact on people's decisions."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0806-01.htm
________

"As recruitment falls, top military official warns of strains on US forces
By Joseph Kay
6 May 2005

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

In testimony before Congress May 2, US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers voiced concern that the sustained deployment of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan poses “significant risks” for future American war plans.

In the annual “Military Risk Assessment and Threat Mitigation Plan,” Myers reportedly stated that the level of deployed troops meant that future wars could not be carried out as quickly and with as few American casualties as the Pentagon has planned. The assessment itself is classified, but several American newspapers reported on the findings through leaks from top military officials."

http://wsws.org/articles/2005/may2005/mili-m06.shtml
_________

Congresswoman Demands Probe of Alleged Coercion by US Army Recruiters


WASHINGTON - A member of the US House of Representatives has demanded a full congressional investigation of allegations that the all-volunteer US Army was trying to coerce soldiers at the end of their contracts to re-enlist, threatening them with tours of duty in Iraq if they refused.

In a letter sent to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter on Monday, Colorado Democrat Diana DeGette asked him to find out if "White House or civilian Pentagon officials are pressuring the military to use coercive tactics to get soldiers to re-enlist, in order to maintain the force levels necessary to fight the war in Iraq and war on terror."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0928-25.htm
________

"Army recruiters in 10 states say that they have been bending or breaking enlistment rules for months, hiding police records and medical histories of potential recruits in order to meet stiff quotas. Some recruiters say commanders have encouraged deception.

With casualties mounting in Iraq, recruiters have been unable to meet their goals for three months now. The so-called ‘stand-down’ retraining follows a rash of complaints that recruiters are resorting to unscrupulous tactics to enlist new soldiers."

http://www.blackvoicenews.com/modules.php?file=article&name=News&op=modload&sid=3214
__________

"US Army Recruiting Shortfalls Are Growing

Lowered standards, increased financial incentives, increased recruiter staffs, and improprieties in recruitment can get only so much milk (sweet or sour) from Bessie the recruiting cow. Opposition to the war in Iraq increasingly takes the form of young men who decide they don't want to risk their lives to fight for George W. Bush and the neoconservatives.

The U.S. Army missed its April recruiting goal by a whopping 42 percent and the Army Reserve fell short by 37 percent, officials said on Tuesday, showing the depth of the military's wartime recruiting woes.

Hard to fight a war without soldiers. More robots are needed.

The gap for April is part of a trend toward larger shortfalls

In March the Army had hoped to sign up 6,800 recruits but fell 32 percent short. That was slightly worse than in February, when a goal of 7,050 was missed by 27 percent. "

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/002772.html
_________

Won't be long before men AND women of military age will be brushing up on their Canadian, eh?

 

[Luke T.]

I am going to totally copy myself from SC:

I expect the recruitment numbers will suck for the military. The economy is on the rebound and there is a war on. Not exactly a hard choice for a kid out of high school.

I took a look around to see how the reenlistments were doing, and things look much better for the military in that area.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0503/p01s01-usmi.html

It is a glance at one of the most unexpected developments of the war in Iraq. Even as the conflict drags on, undermining recruiting efforts and testing the patience of the nation, American soldiers are so far continuing to reenlist at levels that surprise the Pentagon and pundits alike. To the head of the National Guard, this is the legacy of America's "next greatest generation": a band of soldiers more sophisticated than any before in history, which has been asked to adapt to a new style of warfare and often serve multiple tours - all as a volunteer force.

http://www.ngb.army.mil/news/story.asp?id=1499

ARLINGTON, Va. (3/28/2005) — The Army National Guard has retained 73 percent more soldiers during the past three months than it retained during the same period last year, officials reported on Good Friday.

The military is an unknown quantity to a civilian, so enlistment is a harder sell.

It is also possible the goal for the ultimate size of our forces has been raised, and that means higher recruitment goals which could skew accomplishment rates. I have not looked into that angle yet.

 

[Luke T.]

Continued:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS21754.pdf

Congress debated the Administration’s end strength initiative in the FY2005 defense authorization bill. The Senate version, S. 2400, endorsed the Administration’s proposal to increase the Army by 30,000 temporarily over three years. The House version, H.R. 4200, boosted the Army by 30,000, added 9,000 Marines, and designated $1.2 billion of Iraq War funding towards associated costs. The result (P.L. 108-375) was to increase the Army by 20,000 and the Marine Corps by 6,000 in FY2005, allowing for a further increase in FY2006.

 

[Luke T.]

Continued:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=810405

The regular Army missed its recruiting goals for three straight months entering May, falling short by a whopping 42 percent in April. The Army was 16 percent behind its year-to-date target entering May, with a goal of signing up 80,000 recruits in fiscal 2005, which ends Sept. 30.

The Marine Corps missed its goal for signing up new recruits for four straight months entering May and was 2 percent behind its year-to-date goal. It hopes to sign up 38,195 recruits in fiscal 2005.

So how'd they do in FY 2004?

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyjoin/a/army2004recruit.htm

For the fifth year in a row, the U.S. Army Recruiting Command hit its fiscal year active-duty and Reserve recruiting goals.
As of Sept. 27 (2004) , the command brought in 77,587 active Army recruits against a Department of the Army mission of 77,000, and 21,278 Reserve recruits against a 21,000 requirement.

So the goal has been raised by 3,000, which is what, about a 4 percent raise from 77,000?

It will be interesting to watch this to the end of FY 2005 (Sep 30, 05) to see if they even meet 77,000.

 

[Luke T.]

Continued:

Regardless of the war in Iraq, it was my opinion when I retired in 2000 that the military was seriously undermanned. The downsizing had gone too far. And that wasn't just my opinion. Readiness numbers were reflecting this trend.

It could be, and has been, argued that Bush should not have been so quick to go to war if we were that bad off. That argument comes down to how much you think the war was necessary. We weren't exactly ready for WWII, either, but didn't wait til we were fully manned to get into it.

Peacetime always results in undermanning. If not for the war, the downsizing and deterioration of training and materiel would probably have continued. The trend was still going strong in that direction when I retired.

This increase in personnel that is going on now, though, is not because anyone came to their senses. It is most likely because of the war, and as soon as it is over, they will downsize again.

It is just a fact of life that war requires superhuman effort to gear up for and that gearing up will always be behind the power curve.

The sentiment of the American people toward the impetus behind a gearing up period determines how well and how quickly it goes. America is now entering a disillusionment/boredom phase with the war, so the initial fever is waning and recruits are getting harder to come by.

But those who are in it (the war) are still highly motivated. Their disillusionment will occur in another year or so.

 

[apoger]

A. suspend military discharges, B. get out of Iraq or C. reinstitute the draft.

D. Increase benefits and/or compensation.


It's interesting how you gloss over the simplest option.
Not controversial enough for you, Mephisto?

 

[shemp]

D. Increase benefits and/or compensation.


It's interesting how you gloss over the simplest option.
Not controversial enough for you, Mephisto?

How much is your life worth? How much blood money does the military have to offer to make it worth the risk?

 

[Disco]

If the US reinstitutes the draft, who will be drafted? Young men & women, or only men?

When I was but a teenager and the draft registration was first begun, a female friend & I protested the fact that they were only registering young men. Why couldn't they also register us, we wondered?

Well, we went down to the local post office & requested the forms for registration. We had alerted the local media and, surprisingly, some of them showed up. We wrote letters to our senators & reps, and got quite a few interesting responses to our point of view.

So now I wonder if they'll still use the same arguements we got back then about why women shouldn't be drafted, since the role of women in the military has changed since the late '70's.

How would the American public respond to women being drafted?

MHB

 

[Grammatron]

How much is your life worth? How much blood money does the military have to offer to make it worth the risk?

Quite a bit, but I won't pretend there isn't a price.

 

[Luke T.]

How much is your life worth? How much blood money does the military have to offer to make it worth the risk?

If your grandpa served in WWII, you could ask him yourself and have your answer.

 

[Ryokan]

America is now entering a disillusionment/boredom phase with the war.

Boredom, huh? I guess that might happen when you only watch the war on TV. Imagine what terrors the other side is experiencing. I can promise you, it's far from boring.

 

[shemp]

If your grandpa served in WWII, you could ask him yourself and have your answer.

I'm not talking about draftees. I'm asking how much the military has to offer to make it worth the risk to enlistees.

If we were fighting a just and necessary war, I'd be all in favor of a draft. This is neither a just nor necessary war. And we would have enough people to go after bin Laden in Afghanistan (or wherever he is) if we hadn't gone on this insane adventure.

The best option is to get out of Iraq. NOW!

(And as for my grandpa, he served in WWI.)

 

[Renfield]

If your grandpa served in WWII, you could ask him yourself and have your answer.

????. the situation during wwii was much different. even the most fervent supporter of GWII and Bush would admit that, i think. back then i think nearly every able bodied male was signing up before they were drafted. my grandfather faked his birth certificate so that he could go before he'd reached the minumum age requirement.

 

[Number Six]

I predict there won't be a draft in the forseeable future but there will be lots of people saying there will be a draft. No way it happens, especially not in W's remaining 3.5 years. There are just way too many political and symbolic problems with it as well as too many alternate ways of addressing manpower shortages.

Draft talk reminds me of end of the world talk...people always say it's coming and they can never be proven wrong because they don't put time frames on it and therefore it's always coming.

 

[merphie]

I predict there won't be a draft in the forseeable future but there will be lots of people saying there will be a draft. No way it happens, especially not in W's remaining 3.5 years. There are just way too many political and symbolic problems with it as well as too many alternate ways of addressing manpower shortages.

Draft talk reminds me of end of the world talk...people always say it's coming and they can never be proven wrong because they don't put time frames on it and therefore it's always coming.

It seems the Bush haters are always throwing the draft in. Looking for new reasons that it might be done.

What's the point? Bush can't be reelected again.

 

[American]

Fortunately it is not your job to project, procure, and train the world's greatest army.

Your worries are politically motivated, unlike your personal self, which (in contrast) is lazy and aimless.

 

[Manny]

There was a bill presented to the House of Representatives last year to reinstitute the draft.

Who introduced it?

What was the military's feelings about the draft?

How did the bill do?

 

[Renfield]

There was a bill presented to the House of Representatives last year to reinstitute the draft.

Who introduced it?

What was the military's feelings about the draft?

How did the bill do?

That was a year ago. We're talking about two, three years into the future. Things can change in that amount of time. You can only extend the current troops so long. What happens when replacements arent found in the numbers that are needed.

 

[Manny]

What happens when replacements arent found in the numbers that are needed.

Well, given that the Republicans are on record as opposing a draft and the military is on record as opposing a draft, I'd say that the very best way to avoid one is to ensure that the Democrats never come to control the presidency or the legislature. It's the Democrats, after all, who are simultaneously arranging demonstrations against recruiting stations and barring recruiters from schools while sponsoring draft reinstatement bills.

 

[CBL4]

How much is your life worth? How much blood money does the military have to offer to make it worth the risk?

The point that apoger made was that increasing the pay and benefits increases the supply. This is from the first week of Economics 101.

If we decide we need more troops, it would be a lot cheaper and more palatable to raise pay 25% rather than start a draft.

Unless there are several more 9/11s, there will be no will in the nation for a draft and it would political suicide. If there are several more 9/11s, we will probably get enough new volunteers to make the draft unnecessary.

CBL