Draft?

[Jonathan]

It makes sense in you consider the reason why we would need a draft in the first place.

I think that the connection between the draft our wasteful consumer culture is obvious.

Actually, it's more due to the fact that the U.S. wasn't equipped for much beyond conventional warfare. The guys that would be better suited for the current situation in Iraq? Those are our spec ops guys, and we just don't have that many of them to throw at the problems we're encountering. We barely have enough manpower to run patrols and 'maintain order' as it is (recycling exhausted troops notwithstanding).

 

[michaeledward]

The Department of Defense runs a quadrennial review of the service. This is a very public report that states what type of operations the military expect to be able to carry out. Secretary Rumsfeld came in to the position with grand designs to remake the military. To change the force structure. (In fact, the Army is currently restructuring from 39 combat brigades to 42 combat brigades as part of the Rumsfeld restructure.)

But all premises are built upon the idea of the military being able to fight TWO Iraq size wars (regional conflicts) simultaneously. In fact, I think some of the reviews in the mid and late 90's were pointing toward addressing three regional conflicts.

It would seem that the Quadrennial Review Program, like most battle plans, doesn't survive the first shot. Now that we know what it takes to run a single regional conflict, perhaps we should re-evaluate how we are going to staff the military to handle two or three regional conflicts.

All military planning is built on the premise of a three level rotation ... Group A is in combat - Group B is training to go to combat - Group C is resting from combat.

Iraq has destroyed this premise. Currently there are 19.5 combat brigades in service to Iraq and Afghanistan. This does not allow for two bridages in reserve for every active brigade. Watch for the 'Short Cycle' of the military units.

And, because of this accelerated deployment, non-deployed units have received the lowest readiness metric the military provides; which limits their ability to train; which means they get deployed with inadequate training.

Congressman Rangle is addressing one small portion of this problem. But, he seems to be a lone voice in discussing any of the problems faced by the military due to this war of choice - Bush's War.

 

[CoryKS]

You mean the desire by a few people to establish that we are not a nation of individuals, but rather that we are all owned by the state and have to defer our individual liberties to the great good of The Volk?

That is what I see from people who are honestly trying to push for the draft. It is either that or they are using the tactic of trying to scare people into thinking about the draft if they don't elect a certain party, give up our international prescence or something like that.

I think it's more likely that Rangel's strategy is to load the military with dissidents in order to grind the military's capability down to nil. It isn't about equal sharing of burden, and it's not about forcing our leaders to make responsible choices. It's sabotage, pure and simple. You can't deploy when half of your troops run to Canada or simply fall on the ground and sing crappy folk songs.

 

[Don Roley]

But all premises are built upon the idea of the military being able to fight TWO Iraq size wars (regional conflicts) simultaneously. In fact, I think some of the reviews in the mid and late 90's were pointing toward addressing three regional conflicts.

No, the ability to fight two wars at the same time was queitly dropped during the cutbacks of the Clinton years. The Pentagon gave lip service to the idea since that is what their civilian leaders wanted them to. But it was understood that we would not be able to fight a war in Korea and a Soviet attack at the same time. The thinking was that there was no more Soviet Union, so there was no more need for something like that. And the money was better spent elsewhere when they got rid of almost half of the personel.

Funny how the draft manages to run into anti-american ground so quickly while shredding the consitution is for some reason our solemn patriotic duty.

I was just reading an article on the complaints of guys on the ground in Iraq. It seems that the calls for us to respect civil rights has gotten so much influence that if they catch some guy with a bag full of timers that could be used for bombs, but nothing else, they can't drag him in for questioning. The insurgents now realize it and are using things like this to run rings around the guys on the ground.

So it is a little amazing that the guys that scream so much about rights that they do not even want some Iraqi taken in for questioning now saying that in order to do the job we need to grab American citizens and force them into service for years of dangerous service.

It is either a case of people merely using this as a boogyman i.e.- cut and run now, vote democratic in the next election, pull our forces back to our borders and give up our status as a superpower, etc or we may indeed need the draft or people think we are all owned by the state to be used as they see fit. Rangal I think falls into the catagory of those using this as an excuse, but I am surprised that the usual people who call for more rights for Iraqi insurgents are not filling their blogs with rants about this move. Well, maybe I am not all that surprised.

 

[Marginal]

So it is a little amazing that the guys that scream so much about rights that they do not even want some Iraqi taken in for questioning now saying that in order to do the job we need to grab American citizens and force them into service for years of dangerous service.

Usually the people screaming about civil rights are talking about rights extended to US citizens within US borders. Torture has more to do with basic human rights and international treaty obligations.

 

[michaeledward]

No, the ability to fight two wars at the same time was queitly dropped during the cutbacks of the Clinton years.

The facts say otherwise.




This is from the September 30, 2001 Quadrennial Review.

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/qdr2001.pdf

Third, the new construct serves as a bridge from today's force, developed
around the threat-based, two-MTW construct, to a future, transformed
force. The United States will continue to meet its commitments around the world, including in Southwest and Northeast Asia, by maintaining the
ability to defeat aggression in two critical areas in overlapping timeframes.
The United States is not abandoning planning for two conflicts to plan for
fewer than two. On the contrary, DoD is changing the concept altogether
by planning for victory across the spectrum of possible conflict.​

This is from the 1997 Quadrennial Defesne Review
​

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/qdr/sec3.html

As a global power with worldwide interests, it is imperative that the United States now and for the foreseeable future be able to deter and defeat large-scale, cross-border aggression in two distant theaters in overlapping time frames, preferably in concert with regional allies. Maintaining this core capability is central to credibly deterring opportunism - that is, to avoiding a situation in which an aggressor in one region might be tempted to take advantage when U.S. forces are heavily committed elsewhere - and to ensuring that the United States has sufficient military capabilities to deter or defeat aggression by an adversary that is larger, or under circumstances that are more difficult, than expected.

​

 

[Don Roley]

The facts say otherwise.

You seem to have missed it when I said this.

The Pentagon gave lip service to the idea since that is what their civilian leaders wanted them to.

Now, after all that some people have said about how the military can be pressured into making statements about WMDs and such to fit a political agenda, it would be really strange for them to now say that the Pentagon's official statements are to be taken without question.

And the facts are that the spending and personel cuts that happened in the Clinton years mainly fell on the back of the military. The Pentagon lost nearly half of its combat units. It is folly to think that you could lose half your forces and keep the same ability to fight two wars at the same time. The fiction has been maintained, but those in the military and know have not thought that the military could defeat two forces at the same time since the late 90s.

Usually the people screaming about civil rights are talking about rights extended to US citizens within US borders. Torture has more to do with basic human rights and international treaty obligations.

Taking someone in for questioning is not torture IMO. And under the Geneva convention, the guys in Gitmo are not covered. Instead, the argument seems to be that we need to respect their rights because it would make us bad people. And yet, these same people have no problem with making a person a slave for the state for several years.

 

[heretic888]

I was just reading an article on the complaints of guys on the ground in Iraq. It seems that the calls for us to respect civil rights has gotten so much influence that if they catch some guy with a bag full of timers that could be used for bombs, but nothing else, they can't drag him in for questioning. The insurgents now realize it and are using things like this to run rings around the guys on the ground.

To be fair, Don, just because somebody claims something doesn't mean it is actually true. You yourself have had firsthand experience with this.

It is either a case of people merely using this as a boogyman i.e.- cut and run now, vote democratic in the next election, pull our forces back to our borders and give up our status as a superpower, etc or we may indeed need the draft or people think we are all owned by the state to be used as they see fit. Rangal I think falls into the catagory of those using this as an excuse, but I am surprised that the usual people who call for more rights for Iraqi insurgents are not filling their blogs with rants about this move. Well, maybe I am not all that surprised.

I actually seem to recall quite a bit of the Appeal to Consequences fallacy you are describing on the part of the Bush Administration during the 2004 presidential election. How did Vice President Cheney put it?? "Vote for us or the terrorists will attack you." Ah, yes.

To quote Borat: "Very nice."

Laterz.

 

[TonyMac]

Social contract yes. Draft no.

 

[Marginal]

Taking someone in for questioning is not torture IMO.

Depends on it waterboarding is the question mark.

And under the Geneva convention, the guys in Gitmo are not covered.

That's up for debate. A "debate" that revolves around a brand new term that the Bush administration dreamed up sepcifically as an end-around.

Instead, the argument seems to be that we need to respect their rights because it would make us bad people. And yet, these same people have no problem with making a person a slave for the state for several years.

Yes, because again, all Democrats want the draft reinstated.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Understand that I volunteered for military service the very day I turned 17 when I tell you I would be on the first flight bound out of the country if a mandatory draft ever became law, and I'm not even draft age anymore.

 

[Don Roley]

Depends on it waterboarding is the question mark.

You see? When I talk about taking in someone for questioning, someone automatically has to suggest that there would be waterboarding. And waterboarding is something that some ex-military members on the board experienced as part of their training. So the troops on the ground are being told that a bag full of timers is not enough to take someone in for questioning due to our concern for rights, but we are good with the idea of taking away a few years of an American's life to serve the state. And those that are defending Rangel don't seem to have chosen themselves to have served, but want others to.

Yeesh, we have threads here about how we can't buy a carload of Sudafed anymore as if it was a great blow to democracy, but these same people have no problem with grabbing someone and making them serve in public service programs just like the old Soviet Union.

People like Andy Moynihan, Jonathan and I all served and know that the draft is the worst of civil right's violations. I am proud to have served, but I would not force that on anyone else.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

You see? When I talk about taking in someone for questioning, someone automatically has to suggest that there would be waterboarding. And waterboarding is something that some ex-military members on the board experienced as part of their training. So the troops on the ground are being told that a bag full of timers is not enough to take someone in for questioning due to our concern for rights, but we are good with the idea of taking away a few years of an American's life to serve the state. And those that are defending Rangel don't seem to have chosen themselves to have served, but want others to.

Yeesh, we have threads here about how we can't buy a carload of Sudafed anymore as if it was a great blow to democracy, but these same people have no problem with grabbing someone and making them serve in public service programs just like the old Soviet Union.

People like Andy Moynihan, Jonathan and I all served and know that the draft is the worst of civil right's violations. I am proud to have served, but I would not force that on anyone else.

In all fairness I must clarify( I was going to edit my earlier post but it timed out by the time I got back to it). That I volunteered as soon as possible, went all the way to the Military Entrance Processing Station in Boston, but was turned away for excessive hearing loss, however the point remains I was otherwise ready, willing and able.

Just as I'd be otherwise ready, willing and able to leave the country if this ever became law.

 

[Marginal]

You see? When I talk about taking in someone for questioning, someone automatically has to suggest that there would be waterboarding.

Only because I don't beleive your anecdote.

Yeesh, we have threads here about how we can't buy a carload of Sudafed anymore as if it was a great blow to democracy, but these same people have no problem with grabbing someone and making them serve in public service programs just like the old Soviet Union.

I personally think it's funny that people that have been facing us with the "hard realities" of warfare utterly reject the draft, but are cool with extraordinary rendition, a practice most likely identifiable with the old Soviet Union.

 

[CoryKS]

I personally think it's funny that people that have been facing us with the "hard realities" of warfare utterly reject the draft, but are cool with extraordinary rendition, a practice most likely identifiable with the old Soviet Union.

It's simple, really. Citizens of a nation have protections that outsiders do not. That's the government's role - to protect its own citizens. Besides which, the "hard realities" of warfare do not require a draft. They require an effective military, and at this point in our history a draft is counterproductive.

Ask yourself how much more productive your workplace would be if everybody in the country had to take a turn working there regardless of aptitude or morale.

 

[Marginal]

It's simple, really. Citizens of a nation have protections that outsiders do not.

That's not wholly relevant.

 

[CoryKS]

Here's a humorous take on the subject by Scott Ott, the guy who coined the phrase "Axis of Weasels":

Democrat Plan Summarized in One Word: Draft

 

[Touch Of Death]

Being inactive reserve, I'll be sitting in Bagdad dodging bullets long before there is ever a draft... curses!
Sean

 

[michaeledward]

I just want to point out something that former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former Secretary of State said today on Face the Nation.

There really are no additional troops

When referring to the US Army, Mr. Powell said it is:

about broken.

 

[Mariachi Joe]

If Charlie Rangel gets his way there will be a draft