Draft?

[michaeledward]

These three choices were made by what was supposed to be a very secret group of individuals, presenting Chairman Pace with choices. That this secret information was made public means that we have a clearer understanding of the thoughts going into the decision that will finally be made.

Of the three options, there is really only one that will be feasible.

"Go Big" is not feasible because we do not have the military capability. There are not enough inactive military to add to Iraq. We don't have the manpower or equipment. And were we attempt to 'Go Big', we would have take resources away from other areas of the globe where we feel those resources are necessary - Korean Penninsula for example.

"Go Home" is not feasible because of politics. The Republican President is not going to 'CUT AND RUN', which is the only way the 'Go Home' could be spun. Even if it is the correct choice, and should more properly be labelled, Redeploy, Like Congressman Murtha described it.

"Go Long" is the only choice of these three that has any chance at being 'recommended' or 'suggested'. We will increase the number of troops on the ground. We will continue to say we are training Iraqi's. And people will continue to die at an ever increasing rate. This choice is a disaster. But it is the only option available to this Adminstration. And, since they are running the show ... it is the choice.

But there are quite a few other plans out there.

 

[Rich Parsons]

These three choices were made by what was supposed to be a very secret group of individuals, presenting Chairman Pace with choices. That this secret information was made public means that we have a clearer understanding of the thoughts going into the decision that will finally be made.

Of the three options, there is really only one that will be feasible.

"Go Big" is not feasible because we do not have the military capability. There are not enough inactive military to add to Iraq. We don't have the manpower or equipment. And were we attempt to 'Go Big', we would have take resources away from other areas of the globe where we feel those resources are necessary - Korean Penninsula for example.

"Go Home" is not feasible because of politics. The Republican President is not going to 'CUT AND RUN', which is the only way the 'Go Home' could be spun. Even if it is the correct choice, and should more properly be labelled, Redeploy, Like Congressman Murtha described it.

"Go Long" is the only choice of these three that has any chance at being 'recommended' or 'suggested'. We will increase the number of troops on the ground. We will continue to say we are training Iraqi's. And people will continue to die at an ever increasing rate. This choice is a disaster. But it is the only option available to this Adminstration. And, since they are running the show ... it is the choice.

But there are quite a few other plans out there.

From the article I linked in:

According to senior military officials on Pace's staff, there are 16 military members, largely colonels who have recently served in the Gulf region, who have been meeting daily as part of the Iraq review. Pace has asked the group to look at what is going right or wrong in the military conduct of the entire global war on terror, including particularly the war in Iraq and what options are available to make progress.

I see the word Options here.

There will be no formal report or recommendations to Pace and there is no set timetable for any presentations or ideas, said the officials, who requested anonymity because the deliberations are not public. Pace, they said, will use any thoughts and options coming out of the review to help develop his own recommendations for the defense secretary and the president.

"No formal recommendations" - Hmmm I see they are making a distinction here between options and recommendations. As then he, Pace, will recommend (* as in the future not already done *) after he has reviewed the results of the review of the options presented to him.

A special advisory commission led by Bush family friend and former Secretary of State James Baker and former U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton is to issue its report soon, and there has been strong speculation that its members would propose a way ahead for Iraq while making clear the U.S. military mission shouldn't last indefinitely. The commission is expected to release its findings and recommendations sometime next month.

And then this "commission is expected to release its findings and recommenations next month" implies to me that the recommendation will be a specific strategy not a list of options.

Hence this goes back to my confusion that you state recomendation and stress one like it was the recommendation yet it was only one of the suggestions or options.

 

[michaeledward]

Hence this goes back to my confusion that you state recomendation and stress one like it was the recommendation yet it was only one of the suggestions or options.

I understand.

It was highlighted because another poster said that "even Democrats" wouldn't consider such a thing. No other reason. I did not mean to intimate that it was the preferred option, just that it was an option.

I do hope that General Pace does get to make recommendations to the Commander in Chief. I am currently reading State of Denial, and one of the functions of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is to be a military advisor to the President. However, under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, the Chairman was strongly discouraged from being independent from the Secretary.


P.S. And these recommendations/options/suggestions, will probably be off the radar screen, as the 'Baker Hamilton' commission report is due, and will be presenting their own set of options.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I understand.

It was highlighted because another poster said that "even Democrats" wouldn't consider such a thing. No other reason. I did not mean to intimate that it was the preferred option, just that it was an option.

I do hope that General Pace does get to make recommendations to the Commander in Chief. I am currently reading State of Denial, and one of the functions of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is to be a military advisor to the President. However, under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, the Chairman was strongly discouraged from being independent from the Secretary.


P.S. And these recommendations/options/suggestions, will probably be off the radar screen, as the 'Baker Hamilton' commission report is due, and will be presenting their own set of options.

Now I think I understand.

Thank you


I pesonally think that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs should be able to express his/her opinion and present the options that have been recommended.

I have noticed that before (* other Presidents *) the Chariman of the Joint Chief's had more visibility. The only reason I could see this is if osmeone his serving and does not agree with their Boss's approach and is just riding theri time until they get a new Boss. The other option of the Secretary not allowing is something I would hope would not happen, but then again given everything that the Home Land Security Act has done to the citizens, quieting one person might seem small to them. (* Yes I am very dissatisfied with the existing sitting goverenment, in which I consider the Congress and the Court System just as much as the problem as the Executive as they are not acting upon their checks and balances. Note: This is my opinion *)

 

[Don Roley]

President George W. Bush has broken the best fighting machine ever created. It is nice to see someone offering a plan to fix the problem.

The above scares the hell out of me.

When something to deal with threats to America are proposed by Republicans, the cry from the left is that we can't do anything if it infringes on the rights of someone in any part of the world. And yet, the worst infringement you can imagine on someone is being proposed by a democrat and no one from the left is screaming about it.

Oh, and the military is not broken. To try to say it is in order to sell this grab at power and suppresion of our rights is not something I can let go by without comment.

I think this kind of gives proof to the saying that some people think it is not fascism if the right people are holding the whip. It also seems to give an insight to the thinking of some that everyone belongs to the group and do not own themselves. We are all to be used as the group (and of course those in charge of the group) see fit.

Yes, my children would have no right to refuse to serve the greater good of The Volk! They could choose to either go overseas and get shot at, or work as the politicians see fit for the "greater good." And as we have seen in the Soviet Union, the abuses by these people are more the norm than the exception.

But the democrats are not screaming about this like they did anything the Bush administration does. I have to say their silence, and the voices of agreement, scare me. They are the true threat to our individual liberties as seen in this bill.

I served and proud of it. If my kids want to serve I will be so proud. But I want them to have that choice to serve or not. I also can't respect something like this being promoted by people who have never served and never will. Rangell served, but others did not and yet they want others to not have the choice they did. They seem to salivate at the idea of having all those people to use for community projects like they use money for the pork barrel spending. That is, if they are being serious instead of merely using this whole thing as yet another way to try to gain power.

And oh yeah, I notice that the thread has been moved away from the draft to yet another attack on the policies of the president. I can guess why someone would not want this type of thing being discussed in a serious manner.

 

[Carol]

In 2002, Rep. Rangel introduced a mandatory military service bill to Congress in hopes that it would make Congress more reluctant to authorize military action.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Let's keep the thread on topic, shall we?

The subject of a Draft is a serious topic in its own right and there are multiple threads where the handling of the Iraq situation and possible withdrawal is covered. Thank you.

 

[Don Roley]

I should have seen this coming.

Key Democrats oppose renewing military draft(no mention of republicans in the headline)

So, a democrat proposes the draft and that allows the senior members of his party to make a big show of opposing it. Read the article and see just how easy it would be for people to miss that fact and think that it is democrats standing up to the republicans on the matter.

I thought they were being silent on the issue. Now I remember why I am so cynical about the political process. It is all a game to gain control of the white house in two years.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Really I think that this is just political posturing and nothing more. The Draft is not going to be reinstated for one simple reason and that is that the military commanders do not want it! They want soldiers that want to be in the military and voluntarily signed up for it. The ony way the Draft would ever come back is if we were in a world war with an enemy that had lots and lots and lots of people. With Nuclear technology being what it is, that is probably not going to happen for a long, long time. (let's all hope so)

 

[mrhnau]

Really I think that this is just political posturing and nothing more. The Draft is not going to be reinstated for one simple reason and that is that the military commanders do not want it! They want soldiers that want to be in the military and voluntarily signed up for it. The ony way the Draft would ever come back is if we were in a world war with an enemy that had lots and lots and lots of people. With Nuclear technology being what it is, that is probably not going to happen for a long, long time. (let's all hope so)

The guy proposing it (Rangle) is a Democrat with absolutely no chance of losing his seat. Ever. He wins w/ about 80% every time. Its considered "safe" for him to issue statements like this. He has gone out publically and said he is not in favor of a draft. He even voted against it in the past (if I recall correctly). Just smoke and mirrors...

I'll agree with you. Until there is a true international war happening that require tons of deployments (think China or several wars at once: Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc), we won't need a draft.

 

[michaeledward]

As I read this article, I take away from it that the current Combat Commander of the United States Marine Corps feels the current staffing levels of the Corps are insufficient to meet the expected demands of the Civilian Leadership.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11497276/

While a draft may not be the most effective way of meeting this Commander's needs, it is one way to do so.

Further, it would have the added benefit of distributing the personnel burden of military requirements throughout the society that derives benefits from that military.

With a bit of searching, it is possible to find similar concerns with the Army, and the Army Reserves. If you look at equipment usage, it is similarly being burdened by the deployement in Iraq. So many of those units currently not deployed do not have equipment for training.

A draft would not solve this problem.

 

[Don Roley]

While a draft may not be the most effective way of meeting this Commander's needs, it is one way to do so.

Further, it would have the added benefit of distributing the personnel burden of military requirements throughout the society that derives benefits from that military.

If you desire the military to do its job well, then there are a lot of things that we can do that are a lot less destructive of a person's civil rights than forcing them to serve and maybe get shot at.

I have served. It was my choice. For years you do not have the rights that you take for granted. Ever consider what would happen if you let the seargent know what you really thought about him? :uhyeah: Many of the things that you want to be taken away from military interogators on enemy personel as being too abusive are old hat for those of us who have served.

It seems a bit strange to be concerned only when it is someone else's citizens being subjected to being taken away and treated harshly.

And spreading the burden around to all of society seems rather strange. Are you going to force the Amish to serve since they also benefit? I would not force those that did not want to for whatever reason. Of course, I have served. If you have not shared the burden by serving in the military, then how can you say that others should be forced to?

 

[Fu_Bag]

Don't you just love it when someone takes something as serious as this and tries to use it to promote their grip on power?

I think you are right and that they are just trying to get the guys that are scared of going to Iraq or Afghanistan to get to the polls in two years and vote for the party that will pull us out the fastest. With a volunteer military, the people that are facing the danger made the choice willingly to join.

I also think this may be something that never quite gets to the president's desk before the next election. If Bush gets it and vetoes it as I think he would, then they lose their fear factor. But if it is being talked about and a possibility, then the guys that fear getting drafted if it passes will still be motivated to vote.

Lots of talk and commitees in front of cameras. Little action. Nothing that risks it being vetoed.

Politicians.......ugh....

The reason I posted what I did is because it boggles the mind that any politician would say "We're the party that'll pull the troops out of Iraq. Vote for us and there'll be peace again and the troops will come home." and THEN turn right around, after being handed a nice victory by anti-war people, and say "You can either go to Iraq, or you can perform mandatory community service.". Is it just me, or does that boggle the mind?

Well, Pelosi did come out rather quickly and say that reinstating the draft was NOT part of the Democrat agenda over the next two years. I don't think there are many politicians that'll ruin their careers trying to get that passed. You have people on one side accusing the other side of fear mongering, then they turn right around and use the very same tactic. I don't really care which political party kicks the UN to the curb, kills the Kyoto Protocol once and for all, and works on keeping any "One World Government" crap out of the lives of, at the very least, the American people.

If Democrats want to abandon heavy Socialist leanings to do it, I might vote for them. If Republicans start behaving differently than Democrats, they might have a better chance. Personally, I don't think blindly following either party is a good idea. It makes it too easy to have the wool pulled over your eyes by thinking "Well, I'm an X-Party voter so I'll always support X-Party." and "X-Party would NEVER do...........".

Policiticans will do anything to disempower people and make them dependent on government. They bet their lives and careers on it. It's not going to change anytime soon. As for other posters here claiming I have some political agenda........here kettle, kettle, kettle....ppsssstttt....kettle.....I have something to tell you.......

 

[Fu_Bag]

OK. A couple more thoughts on this.

1. Amish and high-tech military equipment and weaponry? whoa....interesting.....

2. Let's say we forcibly spread out military service into all levels of society and take away people's choice to serve out of a sense of duty. Do you honestly want to go into a war zone with someone who absolutely does NOT want to be there, is terrified of being there and, because of this cannot function, and may object strongly to the deployment in the first place? Some people are wired for voluntary military service, some aren't. Aside from that, do you honestly believe the proportion of Democrat to Republican voters on the frontlines will be 50/50? I seriously doubt it due to the fact that you can just choose mandatory community service.

The "Opt Out" clause STILL makes it to where ANY child of ANY politician is safe from active duty. Kind of seems like another intention might be to kill off Republican voters, while keeping the Democrat voters safe and the Democrat party well entrenched, to me. Eh, it's not like Republican politicians are any better. It just happens to be that THIS TIME it was a Democrat politician that did something stupid.

When it comes to stupid, politicians on both sides of the aisle like to "reach across the aisle" in the name of equal opportunity and representation.

 

[Fu_Bag]

The above scares the hell out of me.

When something to deal with threats to America are proposed by Republicans, the cry from the left is that we can't do anything if it infringes on the rights of someone in any part of the world. And yet, the worst infringement you can imagine on someone is being proposed by a democrat and no one from the left is screaming about it.

Oh, and the military is not broken. To try to say it is in order to sell this grab at power and suppresion of our rights is not something I can let go by without comment.

I think this kind of gives proof to the saying that some people think it is not fascism if the right people are holding the whip. It also seems to give an insight to the thinking of some that everyone belongs to the group and do not own themselves. We are all to be used as the group (and of course those in charge of the group) see fit.

Yes, my children would have no right to refuse to serve the greater good of The Volk! They could choose to either go overseas and get shot at, or work as the politicians see fit for the "greater good." And as we have seen in the Soviet Union, the abuses by these people are more the norm than the exception.

But the democrats are not screaming about this like they did anything the Bush administration does. I have to say their silence, and the voices of agreement, scare me. They are the true threat to our individual liberties as seen in this bill.

I served and proud of it. If my kids want to serve I will be so proud. But I want them to have that choice to serve or not. I also can't respect something like this being promoted by people who have never served and never will. Rangell served, but others did not and yet they want others to not have the choice they did. They seem to salivate at the idea of having all those people to use for community projects like they use money for the pork barrel spending. That is, if they are being serious instead of merely using this whole thing as yet another way to try to gain power.

And oh yeah, I notice that the thread has been moved away from the draft to yet another attack on the policies of the president. I can guess why someone would not want this type of thing being discussed in a serious manner.

Well said

 

[Marginal]

Politicians.......ugh....

The reason I posted what I did is because it boggles the mind that any politician would say "We're the party that'll pull the troops out of Iraq. Vote for us and there'll be peace again and the troops will come home." and THEN turn right around, after being handed a nice victory by anti-war people, and say "You can either go to Iraq, or you can perform mandatory community service.". Is it just me, or does that boggle the mind?

It's worth noting that this is one Democrat's pet project. He proposes reinstating the draft constantly. That said, the manditory service angle has a bipartisan fringe following. A few Republicans strongly advocate forcing all males to serve through a certain age range. Don't blame a party for the one or two crazies within that party.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

If you desire the military to do its job well, then there are a lot of things that we can do that are a lot less destructive of a person's civil rights than forcing them to serve and maybe get shot at.

I agree. First thing - before even considering a draft - would be to upgrade and repair all of the gear damaged in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Doing this would have a dramatic effect, IMO and the opinion of retired sr. officers I've heard speak, and allow the dramatically more experienced post-9/11 Armed Forces to do their job better. Unfortunately it's not a pork barrel project for most Congressional districts (D or R) - unlike most large scale weapons designs - so it is NOT currently being done (at least according to sources I've read in the media).

 

[Fu_Bag]

It's worth noting that this is one Democrat's pet project. He proposes reinstating the draft constantly. That said, the manditory service angle has a bipartisan fringe following. A few Republicans strongly advocate forcing all males to serve through a certain age range. Don't blame a party for the one or two crazies within that party.

I completely agree. Well said.

 

[Fu_Bag]

I agree. First thing - before even considering a draft - would be to upgrade and repair all of the gear damaged in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Doing this would have a dramatic effect, IMO and the opinion of retired sr. officers I've heard speak, and allow the dramatically more experienced post-9/11 Armed Forces to do their job better. Unfortunately it's not a pork barrel project for most Congressional districts (D or R) - unlike most large scale weapons designs - so it is NOT currently being done (at least according to sources I've read in the media).

This is a great point.

 

[Don Roley]

It's worth noting that this is one Democrat's pet project. He proposes reinstating the draft constantly.

The only other time he seems to have introduced the draft was in 2003. It hardly seems like he constantly. He did not seem to do it when Clinton was in office. He only has done it since Bush took office.

So it does look like someone playing politics with a serious issue and scare potential voters.