The New Draft

[Mr. Skinny]

well, I'm so FOR a draft. If we are going to commit to these little wars (and the LONG cleanup) let's make sure everyone agree to it enough to send their kids. If one of the Bush twins was serving in Iraq, I'd buy into it more.

I'm of the opinion that a professionally trained volunteer soldier is a much better defender of our country than a basic training only private, or a "shake-n-bake" Lt. leading them.

(snip)

Having a mandatory draft is ensuring that we think long and hard before commiting to something like IRaq. OK, so I asked my neighbor about the draft. On the web site she saw (I'm getting it from her) it's going in place after the "next" 9-11. So I was saying, "so this is just some contingency plan in case there is another large terrorist attack" and she said, "no it's WHEN there is another large terrorist attack." Seems to be some Pentagon document about what is going to happen with the next terrorist attacks. Seriously, if there is another large scale attack you'll have people lined up to volunteer, so I don't see what the point is. Knowing the Pentagon (I grew up in DC with a Fed dad, and friends that all had dads at every other agency) they have contingency documents about when the aliens land. I know they have one about large scale biological crisis (that one was very funny...)

I'm kinda suprised you'd give any legitimacy to this train of thought kitty.

Some men in WWII committed suicide when they found they couldn't serve. It was different in Vietnam.

My uninformed opinion is that, if a draft is needed, it'll happen. Otherwise, I don't expect the politicos to push for it. Too inflammatory.

 

[Patrick]

well, I'm so FOR a draft. If we are going to commit to these little wars (and the LONG cleanup) let's make sure everyone agree to it enough to send their kids. If one of the Bush twins was serving in Iraq, I'd buy into it more.

This is illogical, why should people agree to it enough to send their kids? Like saying we shouldn't have a manned space program unless people agree to their kids being drafted as astronauts, or medical research unless people supply their kids as test subjects, or coal mines unless the kids can be drafted to work in them. The lack of a draft probably causes more long and hard thought by military planners than a ready supply of soldiers from a darft.

 

[Dorian Gray]

We will meet again early in the new year to review the critical paths that we have asked our officials to develop for realizing each of the objectives set out in the action plan. We will consult regularly to ensure continued progress on this plan to achieve the goals outlined as quickly as possible.

Well, that's it then. Bush's completely worked out and signed treaty with Canada will keep out the 3 million Mexican immigrants that come across the borders each year. Oh wait a minute.....

By the way, any evidence that they ever "met again early in the new year' with Canada on this, or 'consulted regularly'? It's not on the site you linked to - last updated in Feb 2003.

But John Kerry said that President Bush is doing nothing to secure our borders!?!

You mean simply composing a plan with a country on one border and then never revisiting that plan again secures all our borders, even borders with another country? In that case, let me secure this nation forever: Plan - take steps to secure our borders and stop bad people from entering, and take this plan out and look at it from time to time.

There - I feel safer already.

2. I recall reading that the military itself doesn't like a draft (unless it's an emergency) because having soldiers that don't want to be there is a hassle.

Like now, for instance?

Like saying we shouldn't have a manned space program unless people agree to their kids being drafted as astronauts, or medical research unless people supply their kids as test subjects, or coal mines unless the kids can be drafted to work in them

It's exactly NOT like that. The idea is that people would change their tune if their own kids were subject to the draft. And 'their kids' means their offspring 18-26 (or 30?), not little kids or minors.

 

[tedly]

Knowing the Pentagon (I grew up in DC with a Fed dad, and friends that all had dads at every other agency) they have contingency documents about when the aliens land. I know they have one about large scale biological crisis (that one was very funny...)

And when I was a pup here in Canada we had the Littleton-Brown brigade which commemorated the author of Plan (some number) which was the Canadian invasion of the US in the 1920's. Something about the Manitoba Dragoons joining forces with the South Saskatchewan Regiment and riding south to Texas, there to wreak devastation on the Heartland.

Contingency plans are meaningless staff excercises for the most part, although there is the example (glorified in 'A Bridge Too Far' _ of the Allies plan to capture the bridge at Arnhem. When the Dutch officers saw the plan their comment was 'You've failed the staff exam.' - the Allies had chosen to advance on a road that looked good on a map but was about 5' above the surrounding terrain and exposed to fire from miles away. It was a make or break test for planning at the Dutch Staff college, but nobody asked the Dutch about how to fight a war in Holland.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

well, I'm so FOR a draft. If we are going to commit to these little wars (and the LONG cleanup) let's make sure everyone agree to it enough to send their kids. If one of the Bush twins was serving in Iraq, I'd buy into it more.

I'm a life long Republican, that thought voting Republican was a vote for fiscal responsibility.
Right....

...

I feel your pain (to steal a line from Bill Clinton). You make a very powerful point. If you vote for war, then you should be willing to sacrifice yourself and /or your children (that includes Dem and Repubs). And we are well aware that the politicians that make these decisions are not the best candidates for being soldiers (although I must admit, I'm seeing many 40+ year old soldiers serving proudly in Iraq).

I also beleive in the Republican ideals of less government and less social spending. I'm not seeing less government in this current administration. The Patriot act is something that only a fascist/dictator could appreciate and has stolen many hard-faught rights that make the US a nation to be admired.

I'm also an atheist, and believe in women's right to choose whether to go full term or abort (for any reason and at any time during the pregnancy). This is a major philosophical divergence from the republican line.

This current administration has been high-jacked by the religeous right and the neo-conservative movement, IMHO that is really a philosophy of a small number of republicans who wield the power and ear of the president.

What is a "true" republican? Someone who follows the party line without question? Is a "true" republican" someone who "hates" the democrats and any of their ideas and must maintain power at any cost (including subverting the constitutional ideals that were set out over 200 years ago). I don't think so. Most republicans that I have talked with feel comfortable in there choices. But what scares me is that they tell me the "party line" propaganda without question (Kerry is a flip-flopper, Bush is decisive etc). This is scary.

President Bush has been given a chance to lead this nation. Although the election was dubious, most Americans rallied behind Bush after 9/11. He made his decisions. If you agree, vote for him and support his campaign. If you're a republican and disagree, then you have some soul-searching.

Charlie (it'll be interesting on Nov 2) Monoxide

 

[epepke]

I also beleive in the Republican ideals of less government and less social spending. I'm not seeing less government in this current administration. The Patriot act is something that only a fascist/dictator could appreciate and has stolen many hard-faught rights that make the US a nation to be admired.

I think what we're seeing is a major shift in the ideals of the two major parties.

This is not the first time there has been a shift. The New Women's Party introduced the Equal Rights Amendment in 1921. At the time, the Republicans were the civil rights party, and they made this a plank in their platform, which they kept until 1973. The Democrats were largely the party of the segregated South and the industrial Northeast. This all began to change in the 1960s, probably having a lot to do with the Vietnam War. By the mid-1970s, a lot of the positions of the two parties had swapped.

The current shift, I think, began with Reagan, whom a lot of conservatives called "red Ronnie." Bush I was a bit of a return to old-fashioned Republicanism (which is why, I think, people called him a "wimp," much as people did with Eisenhower).

At this point, I think that the Democrats have either become or are well on their way to becoming the fiscally conservative party and Republicans the fiscally liberal party. I think that most people don't see it because they still have a memory of what the parties were about and an idea of what they should be about.

I just made this graph based on figures from the Bureau of the Public Debt, Dept. of the Treasury. Maybe some people can feel happy or complacent about it, but I have a hard time doing so.

 

[Chaos]

well, I'm so FOR a draft. If we are going to commit to these little wars (and the LONG cleanup) let's make sure everyone agree to it enough to send their kids. If one of the Bush twins was serving in Iraq, I'd buy into it more.

One of the Bush twins serving in Iraq... you mean, the same way Bush himself served in Vietnam?

*snip*

Having a mandatory draft is ensuring that we think long and hard before commiting to something like IRaq.

No, it simply means your administration has a virtually inexhaustible supply of warm bodies to garrison "liberated" countries that just don´t want to realize that the Americans have come as their saviours - or whichever way they´ll put it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Parents also are believing it. My neighbors with sons all say they are not registering at 18. SEveral of them say they are taking their kids off their taxes this year. My one neighbor with 2 high school boys has already contacted friends in Germany that are going to take the boys the minute the draft is announced. Even before she said. She reminded the other moms to have their kids passports always up to date.

OK, I think we need a bit of clarification here. At least, us poor, wretched non-Americans.

What do you mean, "not registering at 18"? There is no record of a person under 18 in the US? People have to register somewhere, when they turn 18, in order for them to prove their existence?

What do you mean, "taking their kids off their taxes this year"? Does that mean that the kids cease to exist? They never existed at all? Aliens abducted them, so they cannot be drafted?

What do you mean, "take the boys"? Why should relocating to Germany result in them not be required to show up for the draft?

And...what's so darn awful about a draft? (Conscription, not a cold wind)

 

[Mr. Skinny]

OK, I think we need a bit of clarification here. At least, us poor, wretched non-Americans.

What do you mean, "not registering at 18"? There is no record of a person under 18 in the US? People have to register somewhere, when they turn 18, in order for them to prove their existence?

What do you mean, "taking their kids off their taxes this year"? Does that mean that the kids cease to exist? They never existed at all? Aliens abducted them, so they cannot be drafted?

What do you mean, "take the boys"? Why should relocating to Germany result in them not be required to show up for the draft?

And...what's so darn awful about a draft? (Conscription, not a cold wind)

Claus,

US males are required to register with the Selective Service when they reach 18 years of age. I imagine they require this additional registration so that they have somewhat current addresses, etc; know how many draft-age men they have in their local area, etc.

If one fails to register, it can prevent them from receiving government aid, such as student loans, etc.

By "take the boys", I'm guessing kitty means "take them to a country that won't allow extridition to the USA for avoiding the draft" (like Canada, only further away). Kitty can correct me if I'm wrong.

There's lot's of stuff wrong with the draft, at least in the US. During Vietnam, it wasn't fairly administered. Influential people could get their sons into the National Guard/Reserves so that they didn't have to go fight. For a few years, college students could get deferments. Those that could afford to go to Uni could keep their @ss out of the jungle.

I much prefer Israel's draft. Everyone of age has to serve, regardless of sex. Seems much more fair.

 

[kittynh]

yeah, or a draft where social service is an option.

My relatives that were Quakers didn't NOT serve. They just did ambulance service in WWI and one was a medic in WWII (he wasn't required to carry a gun).

Oh,you can go "off the grid" if you want in the US still.

My friend has dear friends that live in Germany. She would send the kids to college there if there were a draft and she felt they would serve in Iraq, as she has always opposed the war there. If there were an option of state side duty, or even Afghanistan she'd be cool with it I think.

Even if we invaded Pakistan and finally got Bin Lauden.

She just felt we weren't justified in invading, and now with the lack of WMD she's even more angry about it.

If you don't register with selective service most kids get by. Maybe not a government loan, but they still get into college and all that.

Hmmm, one of the latest call backs of soldiers by the army had 1/3 not showing up....that's interesting.

It should be noted some of my crazy relatives happily went off to help in the medical field in the Spainish Civil War. But, they were commies....

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus,

US males are required to register with the Selective Service when they reach 18 years of age. I imagine they require this additional registration so that they have somewhat current addresses, etc; know how many draft-age men they have in their local area, etc.

Why not simply create a central database of citizens?

If one fails to register, it can prevent them from receiving government aid, such as student loans, etc.

Fair enough. Why should the state provide aid for those who do not support it?

By "take the boys", I'm guessing kitty means "take them to a country that won't allow extridition to the USA for avoiding the draft" (like Canada, only further away). Kitty can correct me if I'm wrong.

OK. So, some American boys don't want to participate in the defense of their own country. Fair enough. Why should the country support them?

There's lot's of stuff wrong with the draft, at least in the US. During Vietnam, it wasn't fairly administered. Influential people could get their sons into the National Guard/Reserves so that they didn't have to go fight. For a few years, college students could get deferments. Those that could afford to go to Uni could keep their @ss out of the jungle.

If the draft isn't "fairly administered", fix it. If influential people can get their sons into the National Guard/Reserves, fix it. If college students can get deferments, and that is wrong, fix it. If those who can afford it to go to Uni, so they won't go to war, fix it.

Don't make excuses. Fix it.

Don't f*cking whine. Fix it.

Don't complain. Fix it.

Isn't that what the American Way is all about?

 

[Rob Lister]

Why not simply create a central database of citizens?

Great idea but it is very unlikely that either of our political extremes would be happy about that. Each for their own reasons, some good, some not so good. The truth is, such databases already exists, more or less, but there are difficulties in tayloring it for that purpose that go far beyond the technical.

Edit: I should edit to add that the primary reason for the 'selective service' registration is (probably) to let the youngin's know that the possibility is real...even if it is remote. Think of it as a form of conditioning. We got your number, dude!

Fair enough. Why should the state provide aid for those who do not support it?

I think that part of his argument was an unintentional red herring. It does, however, raise an interesting point about the former point; how do you define your use of the word 'state'. We define it somewhat differently (though we are getting closer to your likely understanding everyday...for better or worse)

In a nutshell, the draft is only going to be necessary again when cannon fodder is again necessary. I don't see it coming back anytime soon...especially as it relates to Iraq.

The rest of the Middle East may eventually require it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Great idea but it is very unlikely that either of our political extremes would be happy about that. Each for their own reasons, some good, some not so good. The truth is, such databases already exists, more or less, but there are difficulties in tayloring it for that purpose that go far beyond the technical.

That was a non-answer.

Why are the "political extremes" not happy about that?

Who are these "political extremes"?

What are the difficulties?

I think that part of his argument was an unintentional red herring. It does, however, raise an interesting point about the former point; how do you define your use of the word 'state'. We define it somewhat differently (though we are getting closer to your likely understanding everyday...for better or worse)

In a nutshell, the draft is only going to be necessary again when cannon fodder is again necessary. I don't see it coming back anytime soon...especially as it relates to Iraq.

The rest of the Middle East may eventually require it.

I am sorry, but I don't understand. Why would a draft mean cannon fodder? It sure doesn't around my part of the world.

 

[Rob Lister]

That was a non-answer.

Why are the "political extremes" not happy about that?

Who are these "political extremes"?

What are the difficulties?

Sorry, I was being lazy. I knew it almost as soon as I pushed reply. The extremes are our hard left (Reps and Libs) and our hard right (Dems and Libs). Both, for different reasons, abhor the idea of a centralized federal database, even though many exist for one purpose or the other.

You think of US as a 'state' but really we are fifty different states.

The federal government is the body that coordinates those fifty states. I know it looks like a single nation...and it is in most respects...but there are subtle differences. The reason such databases are feared, especially at the federal level (where the draft is administered) stems from the intense distrust many (if not most) Americans have of government, especially federal government.

Lots of folk (not all of them woo) don't want the federal government knowing ANYTHING about anybody unless there is an absolute need to know. And if knowing is absolutely necessary, that knowledge should only be used for the exact purpose it was intended...and no other.

The Federal government only knows who 'exists' because of social security numbers and taxes. They are not 'allowed' to use that data for other purposes (although they certainly do).

Only the individual states, who do not necessarily talk to each other, have any knowledge of if a person 'still exists' and even they don't keep current data very current.

I am sorry, but I don't understand. Why would a draft mean cannon fodder? It sure doesn't around my part of the world.

Because in a nation so large as this, and given the current state of the military art, there are enough volunteers to do most any campaign we care to do. We'd only require conscripts after we'd 'gone through' all the volunteers. The circumstances under which that would happen are the same circumstances that 'cannon fodder' becomes a reality.

On the other hand, if we were, all at once, to invade another couple of nations, then a draft might well become necessary. It is therefore more expedient to do it one or two...possibly three...campaigns at a time.

I've got Denmark penciled in for March, 2009.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

(snip)
If the draft isn't "fairly administered", fix it. If influential people can get their sons into the National Guard/Reserves, fix it. If college students can get deferments, and that is wrong, fix it. If those who can afford it to go to Uni, so they won't go to war, fix it.

Don't make excuses. Fix it.

Don't f*cking whine. Fix it.

Don't complain. Fix it.

Isn't that what the American Way is all about?

I think you make a good point here, Claus. We should fix the Selective Service System.

From their web site......Here's what it takes to be a member of your local draft board:

Local Board members are volunteers appointed by the President. They play an important community role closely connected with our nation's defense. If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local Boards throughout America would decide which young men in each community receive deferments, postponements, or exemptions from military service based on federal guidelines.

This form is for people interested in becoming a Local Board Member with Selective Service. To register with Selective Service, you should go to the on-line registration page.

If you are interested in receiving information on becoming a Board Member for the Selective Service System (SSS), please complete this form. When you submit the following information to the Selective Service System, you will receive an application for board membership, a business reply envelope, and a Board Member Information Booklet that gives details on Board Member responsibilities. After you have submitted your application, a Selective Service employee will contact you to schedule a personal interview.

Qualifications for becoming a Local Board Member:

Must be 18 years old or older
Must be a citizen of the United States
Men must have registered with the Selective Service,
except those born from March 29, 1957 through December 31, 1959.
Must not be an employee of any law enforcement organization
Must not be an active or retired member of the Armed Forces
Must not have been convicted of any criminal offense.

Pretty tough qualifications, eh? Perhaps I'll apply.

 

[jj]

Why have a draft when the DoD can just keep extending the poor shmucks who signed up for reserve duty?

Charlie (if there's a draft, I'm going to Canada) Monoxide

Have you seen the newspaper reports where they're having to keep guard units under lockdown from the time they get orders to the time they ship out to prevent AWOL's?

I think that answers your questions. We're out of troops, thank you 'W'.

 

[jj]

But John Kerry said that President Bush is doing nothing to secure our borders!?!

I'd like to know what Lurch's voting record is on stopping the illegal alien tidal wave - I'd be very surprised if he get's any grade but an "F". But as with so many issues, looks like he's flipped to be come a born again secure borders advocate.

I see the children are back to name-calling. I guess they're back to being afraid that the less bad-guy might win again.

 

[BPSCG]

This should put an end to it.

Right?

Right?

Right?

Here's the money quote. The bill was introduced by Charles Rangel (D-NY), but:

Even he urged Democrats to vote against the bill, and charged Republicans were cynically trying to use the measure to escape election-season questions about the war in Iraq.

You got that? Rangel introduces a bill to reinstate the draft as a deliberate attempt to do nothing more than score some cheap political points, then urges Congress to vote against his own bill, then calls his opponents who forced a vote on his own bill "cynical."

Even Bill Clinton must be standing there in slack-jawed amazement and admiration at the utter brazenness. Guy must have testicles the size of Florida grapefruits.

 

[aerocontrols]

Have you seen the newspaper reports where they're having to keep guard units under lockdown from the time they get orders to the time they ship out to prevent AWOL's?

I think that answers your questions. We're out of troops, thank you 'W'.

I've not seen any. Care to link me?

 

[Grammatron]

I was listening to an interview with some guy from Selective Service -- don't recall his name -- and he said that aside from the obvious fact of this story being bogus, it would take $500 million dollars to start the draft. Those $28 million dollars are actually $26 million and that's the same budget they had last year.

Also, I would imagine facilities would be needed to house the extra personal. Not to mention extra personal necessary to train, equip and maintain the draftees. Doesn't sound to me like something one can sneak under the radar.