PDA

View Full Version : Get ready for the draft


delirious
June 29, 2004, 03:34:56 AM
U.S. Readies for Draft

Despite denials that the U.S. plans to re-institute the draft, the Pentagon has stepped up preparations for a new Selective Service System that could allow for a full-blown draft by next year.

Every few months Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gets peppered with the nettlesome question about whether the administration, straining to keep boots on the ground around the globe, is considering reviving the compulsory military service draft ? moribund since 1973. The answer is always an unqualified ?No.?

Inquiries by NewsMax ? and a persistent host of others, says the agency ? to the Selective Service System (SSS) about an impending return to the draft are answered as well with an explicit canned denial:

?Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces ? either with a special skills or regular draft.

?Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new.

?Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq.

?Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25.?

Is Getting Ready

But savvy draft-watchers, including author, radio personality and attorney Col. Ron Ray, USMCR (Ret.), dispute the ?is not getting ready? phrase, suggesting that there is, indeed, evidence indicating a new, heightened urgency within the agency, which these days is independent and no longer falls under the aegis of the Department of Defense. Ray himself had served as a Pentagon official during the Reagan administration.

For sure, ?The Selective Service System?s Annual Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2004,? is a document that leaves the careful reader with anything but the impression of a sleepy agency drilling for a fire it knows will never flare.

# By early next year, the government will be test firing a mobilization infrastructure of 56 state headquarters, 442 area offices, and 1,980 local boards.

# Funding is in the coffers to kick off a rigorous ?Area Office Prototype Exercise,? which will ?test the activation process from SSS Lottery input to the issuance of First Armed Forces Examination Orders.?

# Ramping up is the ?Selective Service System?s High School Registrar Program,? a plan to put volunteer registrars in at least 85 percent of the nation?s high schools ? an increase from 65 percent in 1998.

# At the head of the busy-work list ? a no-nonsense commitment to report to the president by March 31st, 2005 that the system is ready to roll full steam within 75 days, which would clear the decks for a first lottery by June 15th, 2005.

Meanwhile, helping the agency to reach its goals and objectives is a little known provision of the No Child Left Behind Act that requires schools to provide contact information for every student ? upon pain of losing federal aid dollars.

Standby Plans

Alyce Burton, a spokeswoman for the Selective Service, says that at the request of the Pentagon, SSS has been developing standby plans for drafting doctors, nurses and medical technicians.

Furthermore, SSS has been mulling draft procedures for other types of specialists ? in particular linguists and computer programmers. But true to form, Burton is careful to add the stock denial: ?We?ve been told that a draft of untrained manpower would not be necessary in the future.?

But that gratuitous disclaimer aside, Col. Ray, who defended Specialist Michael New, the U.S. soldier who refused to wear the U.N. uniform, tells NewsMax regarding the agency?s heady agenda: ?If you were working for the intelligence service of an enemy foreign government, all the indicators are there [for a headlong ramp-up to a draft].?

Ray further points to what he suggests is a telling February 2004 statement the director of the Selective Service agency sent to the Pentagon:

?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 18-34, with an added focus on individuals with critical skills.?

Despite SSS?s studious low profile and careful tidbits promulgated for public consumption, draft-return rumors recently abounded on the heels of word that the Selective Service was racing to fill vacancies on local draft boards. Advertisements were appearing in local newspapers calling for recruits to man the review panels.

Business As Usual

However, SSS quashed the furor by simply stating that all was just business as usual: The longest anyone can serve on a local draft board is 20 years and most of the members were appointed in 1980 when President Jimmy Carter reinstated registration for the draft.

What appeared to be a frantic exercise was nothing more than a mundane routine replacement of warm bodies, soothed the agency. The canned response by SSS to a frantic media and public:

?There is NO connection between this ongoing, routine public outreach to compensate for natural board attrition and current international events. Both the president and the secretary of defense have stated on several occasions that a draft is not needed for the war on terrorism, including Iraq.?

In truth, some experts don?t outright dismiss the government?s pro forma dismissals of an untrained manpower draft ? at least for the near term.

At the heart of the matter is the election year, and selective service is a hot button issue that neither contestant in November is raring to push.

A recent CNN-USA TODAY-Gallup Poll indicates that no less than 80 percent of Americans are against a return to the draft. Furthermore, only 17 percent say they support a draft.

Little Support

It should be noted that just prior to the Iraq war, support for the draft was at 27 percent. And, finally, a no-brainer: the poll also found that young people were least likely to support a draft.

Second in the hit parade of reasons why an untrained manpower draft is unlikely at this time is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. When he was a young congressman from Illinois, Rumsfeld introduced one of the first bills in Congress to abolish the draft.

These days the still anti-draft Rumsfeld is careful not to suggest that draftees are by their nature second-class soldiers because they are coerced to serve.

Having taken a hit for just that sentiment not long ago, the secretary now points to the more academic of his rationales ? high turnover and a complicated deferment system that a draft engenders.

Rumsfeld?s most recent pronouncement on the subject: ?I don?t know anyone in the Executive Branch who thinks it?s appropriate or necessary to reinstitute the draft.?

Third reason: The Army ? albeit experiencing serious shortfalls of military policemen, linguists, interrogators, civil affairs specialists and medics ? has ready access to a handy pool of manpower, the Individual Ready Reserve, the inactive component of the military that consists of vets who have completed their enlistment contracts but still have time remaining on a total 8-year commitment. As many as 6,500 could be recalled to active duty.

Fourth: Stopgap measures by the DoD are working to keep the outposts manned. ?Stop loss? and ?stop move? orders are in effect. The first bar members of the military from retiring or resigning. The second extends overseas assignment involuntarily ? as was the case with the 20,000 troops kept overtime in Iraq.

Fifth: Troop shortages related to the war in Iraq and other deployments are being eased by turning over to civilians jobs now done by members of the armed forces. Rumsfeld hopes to reassign to civilian employees jobs now performed by no less than 300,000 uniformed men and women.

Sixth: Trust that Congress will bail the armed forces out in time. A cadre of both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill are pushing to permanently increase the size of the Armed Forces by at least 30,000.

Draft Already Begun?

The inevitable critics of the DoD?s stopgap measures, however, say that many volunteers already have served one or more tours of duty in Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq. ?Stop move? obviously frustrates those who are ready to be honorably discharged.

Some even suggest that this device amounts to nothing less than constructive conscription ? a draft. Instead of drafting the civilian population, the military is ?drafting? the soldiers who already are enlisted by forcing them to serve longer than usual.

Col. Ray, who served on a presidential commission on women in the military, is one of these skeptics, telling NewsMax, ?Stop loss is nothing less than the beginning of a draft.?

Such arguments have not gone unheeded.

Just days after the Pentagon extended the tours of 20,000 troops in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said, ?There?s not an American ... that doesn?t understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future.?

?Why shouldn?t we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?? Hagel added, arguing that restoring the draft would force ?our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face.?

Indeed, a pair of bills was introduced in Congress last year that would bring back the military draft.

The Senate version of the legislation, sponsored by Sen. Fritz Hollings, D-S.C., says its purpose is ?to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons 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.?

The House of Representatives version of the bill was sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.

Neither bill is winning a footrace on the long road to passage. And therein rests the overriding reason why some experts are not looking to see the draft revisited any time soon.

Obstacles to Reinstatement

Congress must pass legislation authorizing the reinstatement of the draft. It?s not something that can be done by the Chief Executive with the stroke of a pen on an executive order.

If, however, another front appears on the nation?s already extended battle lines ? N. Korea or Iran, for instance ? all bets may be off. And the preparations underway today could mean that a draft could be up and running in just a matter of months.

Col. Ray already sees the writing on the wall, referring to the writings of former NATO Supreme Commander Gen. Wesley Clark, who has suggested that there was and may be yet afoot a rather ambitious, albeit clandestine, agenda for American arms, mentioning war scenarios for Iran, North Korea and even ostensible ally Saudi Arabia.

Ray wrinkles his brow and rubs his forehead, mulling over what he sees as a dogging question: ?Why have we kept the numbers of troops artificially low? We?re half the combat strength we had in 1991, yet we are manning 735 bases around the world.?

Ray doesn?t suggest to NewsMax that he has the answer to the conundrum. Yet he sees the draft as perhaps an inevitable consequence of our war on terror.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

FM
June 29, 2004, 05:02:57 AM
very much true...what is being done is a lot of wheels are turning to have the system in near-place to be able to act upon and implement fairly quickly when needed.

Part of the process are the legislations, albeit dormant, are still there to be able to be passed (most likely within some other large-scale bill) and signed in quickly...once that happens then things are fully off and running.

While I believe that right now there's enough people to cover somewhat, things are still understaffed a bit and even with re-callups and the like, it'll probably not be enough ESPECIALLY if this carries into the extreme long-term, say for the next 3-5 years, AND other stuff goes to hell elsewhere where (more) troops are/might be needed.

As I mentioned either here or elsewhere before, if the draft gets reinstated, it'll be for both men AND women age 18-25 and there'll be no "hiding" up in Canada thanks to the Patriot Act/new border laws.

Furthermore, the protests et Al done up at that time will make Vietnam look like child's play :shock:

brakada
June 29, 2004, 12:16:02 PM
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

You quoting newsmax??? The world is full of surprises. :lol:

And regarding the draft: Well, the USA will need a lot young boys to "liberate" Iran, North Korea and other "evil" countries... :mrgreen:

Balanc3
June 29, 2004, 01:19:53 PM
Thank the Dems for this one, its there way to counter the War in Iraq and send some representatives kids to war. what a counter measure. Its just sad that now the conservatives are going along with the proposal so we don't keep losing our best volunteers in the military to insurgents. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

MJDub
June 29, 2004, 02:16:42 PM
Oh shit. I would totally be fucked. :x

mylexicon
June 29, 2004, 02:30:47 PM
yeah the reason this has so much weight is actually because both sides
think it is going to rectify injustices. Right thinks it will help root out
the insolence in our overly spoiled society and Left thinks it will help
eliminate the racial injustices of the military, and it will force wealthy
people's kids into military service (good ole racial and class warfare)

Anywho. Military service would actually be a really good thing for our
country. A lot of countries (European and others) already have a system
like this. Plus for all the pacifists who think this will cause more war.....
it won't. It will probably cost less because more people will have family
at stake. And being a hunter, i have a personal interest in seeing this passed
because i won't have to hear a bunch of people bitch about guns anymore.
People who have never fired a weapon will be educated.....and all the stupid
kids who think killing people terminator style is cool, will be overwhelmed and educated
by the amount of destructive power they hold in their hands.

FM
June 29, 2004, 03:02:50 PM
Well, they're involuntarily calling up about 5,600 troops now from the Individual Ready Reserve....

brakada
June 29, 2004, 05:01:31 PM
And being a hunter, i have a personal interest in seeing this passed because i won't have to hear a bunch of people bitch about guns anymore. People who have never fired a weapon will be educated.....and all the stupid kids who think killing people terminator style is cool, will be overwhelmed and educated by the amount of destructive power they hold in their hands.

What does draft have to do with the right to arms? In my country we had draft for as long as I can remember (we switched to a professional army about a year ago) and still we weapons were never legal (except for huinters, police and military personel) Every holder of the weapon needs a licence and a a registred weapon. Although criminals do get hold of guns, the no. of people who die because of firearms is still very very low (I think it's probably less than 10 a year per our 200000 population. So I don't see any connection between people bitchin' about guns and draft.

mylexicon
June 29, 2004, 05:40:19 PM
Every holder of the weapon needs a licence and a a registred weapon.

Sounds like America. To understand the American gun debate you have to
live in America or at least understand the details of the American gun debate.

It would take a long time to give you perspective on how the draft would change
the American gun debate........but i'll try anyway. :mrgreen:

Most people who are against guns have never fired one, and i would wager
that most have never even held one. Everything they know about guns and
everything they have learned about how they are used is based upon Hollywood
action/horror movies,the sensationalist American media, and anti-firearm lobbyists
who tell people that guns randomly go off and blow away children and innocent bystanders.
People need perspective if they want to reform the 2nd amendment, not fear and ignorance.

brakada
June 30, 2004, 08:03:26 AM
Sounds like America. To understand the American gun debate you have to
live in America or at least understand the details of the American gun debate.


I think I was seeing a documentary somewhere (and no it wasn't MM) that in some states all you need is an id and be old enough to buy a weapon.


It would take a long time to give you perspective on how the draft would change
the American gun debate........but i'll try anyway. :mrgreen:


Thankx, for trying. :wink:


Most people who are against guns have never fired one, and i would wager
that most have never even held one. Everything they know about guns and
everything they have learned about how they are used is based upon Hollywood
action/horror movies,the sensationalist American media, and anti-firearm lobbyists
who tell people that guns randomly go off and blow away children and innocent bystanders.
People need perspective if they want to reform the 2nd amendment, not fear and ignorance.

Well, some people are like that, but for example I love guns, and I am against the right for everyone to posess firearms (except for hunting and with highest education about firearms). I was drafted and I didn't learn many new things about guns. My argument against guns is very simple: human nature. There are too many dumbfucks which are primitive and will never understand the responsibility that come with such weapons and there are far too many psychos or bad-tempered people around. At least what everyone should do, is pass extensive psychiatrical tests, before getting a hold of a gun.

I think a lot of accidents happen, simply because guns are too common and people are irresponsible. And a child who finds a gun (i.e.) in his parents bedroom won't be drafted yet to find out and learn about his / her responsibilities.

I do not know what solution would be best for the states, because "disarming" the population would be almost impossible, but I am totally happy with the situation in my country, though.

Balanc3
June 30, 2004, 02:07:30 PM
Sounds like America. To understand the American gun debate you have to
live in America or at least understand the details of the American gun debate.


I think I was seeing a documentary somewhere (and no it wasn't MM) that in some states all you need is an id and be old enough to buy a weapon.

Wrong again. You must go through a background check and cannot be a convicted felon. You also must be of age and in some states much go through hunter safety courses and get a gun permit. Its not like you can goto the grocery store and buy a handgun


It would take a long time to give you perspective on how the draft would change
the American gun debate........but i'll try anyway. :mrgreen:


Thankx, for trying.

Looks like I'll be seeing you on your side of the world soon. :wink:


Most people who are against guns have never fired one, and i would wager
that most have never even held one. Everything they know about guns and
everything they have learned about how they are used is based upon Hollywood
action/horror movies,the sensationalist American media, and anti-firearm lobbyists
who tell people that guns randomly go off and blow away children and innocent bystanders.
People need perspective if they want to reform the 2nd amendment, not fear and ignorance.

Sound like your country is not much different than ours. Just a little backwards and more primative. Honestly you shouldnt get into these hardcore debates over american politics when you don't know wtf is really goin on. You don't live here so how could you possibly get GOOD information? Quit believing hollywood Brakada. This aint the wild west.

phishfood
June 30, 2004, 02:47:29 PM
i thought some southern states, nc for example, it was much easier to buy a gun, esp if it wasnt a handgun.

i feel that every1 should take a gun safty class. its a good experience and teaches you that a gun isnt as dangerous as some groups make it out to be. if you treat it with respect, ie dont try and shoot an apple off your friends head or open your beer can with it, it can be very safe.

Kobe
June 30, 2004, 02:49:04 PM
It's time like this when I'm glad to be an old fart. :EvilFlic:

mylexicon
June 30, 2004, 03:01:17 PM
My argument against guns is very simple: human nature. There are too many dumbfucks which are primitive and will never understand the responsibility that come with such weapons and there are far too many psychos or bad-tempered people around.

That's my argument too, in the land of no guns the man with a gun is king.
I don't care if they want to tighten restrictions, and this that and the other
thing. But after they make me walk through all the political red tape, i shouldn't
have to hear another peep. No more background checks, no 5 day waiting
period. As long as my record is clear......i walk in to a gun store.....and i
walk out with a gun.

Gun control isn't even what i'm worried about, everyone knows you can get
a gun in this country even if your not supposed to have it. My beef is the
people who are afraid of them and want to outlaw them all together. That
type of ideology would turn a lot of honest law abiding citizens into criminals.

brakada
June 30, 2004, 03:20:32 PM
Wrong again. You must go through a background check and cannot be a convicted felon. You also must be of age and in some states much go through hunter safety courses and get a gun permit. Its not like you can goto the grocery store and buy a handgun


I never claimed that it's the same as going into a grocery store. :roll: So you KNOW the details about legislation and rules for buying fire-arms for each and every American state? And it is the same in every state?


Looks like I'll be seeing you on your side of the world soon. :wink:


:Bingo: Well, if you come. Let me know. You can even stay at my place, I can show you Slovenia, and we definitely have some of the wildest parties... Especially some of the best techno parties in our corner of the world. :Twilo:


Sound like your country is not much different than ours. Just a little backwards and more primative. Honestly you shouldnt get into these hardcore debates over american politics when you don't know wtf is really goin on. You don't live here so how could you possibly get GOOD information? Quit believing hollywood Brakada. This aint the wild west.

Although backwards and primitive, at least we know how to use the "quote" function here on MS :WinkNSmi: I've seen most of the Europe, I've been to the USA (2 times), Australia (2 times), Malaysia, Egypt, but I learned to like it here. I can get almost everything that I need, the country's still developping, but it's getting better all the time and we made huge progress in the last 10 years. So actually, I wouldn't probably live anywhere else, except for Australia maybe. :Naughty:

As for me getting into hardcore debates about American politics, how the fuck (sorry if I sound a bit angry) do you know how much I know about American politics? I read newspaper every day, I browse the internet every day, I read articles on the internet and most of all I browse "MS politics forum", where I think I can get more than enough knowledge about the American political situation, from both sides (lthough I am non-partisan, I am more enclined to liberals, I check and read "conservative" sources, too) So I think I am entitled to participate in every political debate I want and I know more about American politics than the avarage American... Do you have to live in Iraq to discuss war in Iraq? I don't think so. Oh, and most of all, I didn't see Bowling for Columbine and I do not trust MM. If you would read my other posts you would have known better.

No offense taken, I just wanted to straighten out the facts. :mrgreen: So I hope we can all be friends and continue ranting. :Bingo: 8)

mylexicon
June 30, 2004, 03:31:06 PM
No offense taken, I just wanted to straighten out the facts. :mrgreen: So I hope we can all be friends and continue ranting. :Bingo: 8)

Brakada you're not such a bad guy. I can't help but think you support liberals
because you think your supposed to. But based upon most of the stuff you
say that doesn't have to do with Iraq you seem more like a moderate.

Tip:Don't join forces with liberals....they say many times in life you are known
by the company you keep.....avoid them like the plague.Or shoot them i don't care.....hahahaha......if you quote this please remove it!

Balanc3
June 30, 2004, 11:19:46 PM
Sounds like you've seen some interesting places. But, your posts on previous topics tell me how much you really know about american politics. Not saying your a bad guy or anything, but the term liberal is very bad in the states. Liberals dont even like being liberal they are progressives, however they are some lying, cheating, s.o.b's and the very thought of them makes my butt pucker.

And thank god, your against MM cause at first you were defending him. But glancing for a second at a news article does not provide facts. You need living proof, and your right every state is different here which makes things so interesting. But if you really knew what was right for Americans, it is definately not John Kerry, not saying that 'W' is great either, but the conservative ideas are. But please go on ranting, you are very amusing and can tell us a lot about your own country that we would never know.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

brakada
July 1, 2004, 05:37:09 AM
Sounds like you've seen some interesting places. But, your posts on previous topics tell me how much you really know about american politics. Not saying your a bad guy or anything, but the term liberal is very bad in the states. Liberals dont even like being liberal they are progressives, however they are some lying, cheating, s.o.b's and the very thought of them makes my butt pucker.


Which of my posts are you talking about? Some quotes would be appreciated (if you'll be able to quote my posts from other topics :mrgreen: :wink: . I never said I am a liberal, (especially not an American liberal :roll:), it is just that I am more enclined to liberal views and ideas, than to conservative ones. I think you're a sloppy reader :wink: and you "just" glanced thorugh a couple of my posts, so, you probably misunderstood me. :D


And thank god, your against MM cause at first you were defending him. But glancing for a second at a news article does not provide facts. You need living proof, and your right every state is different here which makes things so interesting. But if you really knew what was right for Americans, it is definately not John Kerry, not saying that 'W' is great either, but the conservative ideas are. But please go on ranting, you are very amusing and can tell us a lot about your own country that we would never know.


I never said I am against MM cause (drop Bush). :mrgreen: I just said...
...nevermind, here's the quote:


IMO everyone is giving him (MM) too much credit (the liberals and the conservatives). He is just a writer / director for god's sake, not a prophet, angel or a satan (depends which side you're on).

Anything that comes out of Hollywood can't be treated too seriously or a bible. There are some facts and there is some fiction, but who really cares. Can't we and don't we have the right to decide on our own? I think he is a great writer and a great director, who has a lot of valid points, but exagurates in everything. And that's all.


And as for the presidental election, I don't think anyone can be too right (or too wrong) when we (in fact you) are choosing the lesser evil. And as I said many times, I mostly judge Bush based on his international politics, which indirectly influence my life, too. I don't take a glance at the articles, I read them thoroughly. I bet you don't have a living proof about everything you're ranting about, and most of it is based on what you read or hear. Politics is based on lies and interpretations of facts, which can be very different although based on the same facts. It's just the way it is and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I am aware that I sometimes develop "strange", "weird", liberal ideas/theories, but I always point out that this are only my ideas/theories and I'm not trying to sell them as facts. MY opinion sometimes changes but it would probably take a lot more than a movie to change my political orientation, if you get my point. :WinkNSmi:

brakada
July 1, 2004, 05:51:29 AM
Brakada you're not such a bad guy. I can't help but think you support liberals
because you think your supposed to. But based upon most of the stuff you
say that doesn't have to do with Iraq you seem more like a moderate.

Tip:Don't join forces with liberals....they say many times in life you are known
by the company you keep.....avoid them like the plague.

This sounds almost like a compliment. :mrgreen: Who would have thought? Well, you're not a bad guy either. Although our views can sometimes be quite different, I still respect you and I understand why you take your side (in other words: you're never saying XY is an idiot, just because he is, but you always have valid reasons) I like it that you back almost everything up, although that still doesn't mean we should agree on everything. I consider you a "burning" capitalist, more than a conservative, although you support of the Bush admin, in most of its actions. Well, you have your reasons and I have mine, so let's continue ranting. History will probably proove, that we're both wrong... :Bingo: :mrgreen: :wink:

And you're a naughty, naughty boy.

:wink: