US gearing up for draft Could it be true?


PDA






jsalcedo
February 11, 2004, 11:20 PM
[ This just off a mailing list .... ]

US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005
by Adam Stutz
Vancouver IndyMedia - Wednesday January 28, 2004 at 09:50 AM

http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/105146.php

The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate
the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on
"terrorism." ial election!

Reinstatement of the draft

Dear Friends and Family,

I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the
federal government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up
for a protracted war on "terrorism."

Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S89 and
HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early
as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential
election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these
bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately. Details
and links follow.

The Draft*

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System
(SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as
early as June 15, 2005. SSS must report to Bush on March 31, 2005
that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for
activation. Please see website:
http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the SSS Annual
Performance Plan - Fiscal Year 2004.

The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all
10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots
nationwide. Though this is an unpopular election year topic,
military experts and influential members of Congress are
suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog"
in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on
"terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to
draft.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5146.htm

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward this
year, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "To
provide for the common defense by requiring that all young
persons [age 18-26] 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." These active bills currently
sit in the Committee on Armed Services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the
Vietnam era remember. College and Canada will not be options. In
December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "Smart Border
Declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers
in. Signed by Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Manley,
and US Homeland Security Director, Gov. Tom Ridge, the
declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among
other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and
departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more
equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher
education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to
postpone service until the end of their cur-rent semester.
Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

If you enjoyed reading about "US gearing up for draft Could it be true?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Art Eatman
February 11, 2004, 11:28 PM
I really doubt it. It would be a political kiss of death, for one thing. Second, it would not be all that difficult to up the amount of "Join up!" PR and offer incentives. Lots of people, right now, with the economy the way it is, would find the military deal reasonably attractive. A re-allocation of already-appropriated money would provide the funding.

If you consider the already-extant citizenship laws/rules for military service, and look at the relatively small numbers, I fail to see any need for a draft.

Art

Hkmp5sd
February 11, 2004, 11:44 PM
Other than recording a list of names, the Selective Service has been dormant for several decades. I don't think these bills mean they are actually planning to restart the draft. I believe they are simply bringing the system back up to an operational status so that in the event they do need to begin drafting troops, they will be ready and can do so quickly. Even by starting now, it is going to be over a year before they are in a position to start drafting. If another war breaks out, say North Korea invading South Korea or China attacking Taiwan, while we still have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, we could need a rapid influx of new soldiers. This is preparing for that scenerio.

Binkus
February 11, 2004, 11:49 PM
I really dont see this happening. I dont know of any real figures but from what I understand the recrutemant rate has increased in the past 3 years (just word of mouth talking to recruiters). Decpite what your hear the Army is not streched out as thin as some say. Yes many units are extremly busy but there is not a shortage of man power in my opnion. Being in the Army myself I am against a Draft at this point. I believe it would possibly cause more trouble than it could help. I also beleve that a Man should defend his country in a time of need but there is a huge difference in the quallity of a volunteer soilder and one who dosent want to be there. I have seen the deffernce between soilders who have only joined the millitary and those who have joined and then voluntered for specalized training and or units and there is quite a difference. With a Draft there will be a increase of soiders who dont wont to be there (there are some allready) wich will create more time needed on those soilders and take away from the training time. Athough most of the drafteis will turn out to be productive soilders once they are broken in by a good NCO those few problem children are not worth the extra man power at this time. It would amaze some of you how much 1 person could bring down a unit. Just my two cents, sorry for ranting.

wingnutx
February 12, 2004, 12:00 AM
A friend of mine was just turned down by the Air Guard for having a tattoo on his forearm. This guy is a trained crew chief from the Air Force. If they were hard up for troops they'd just stop turning people away for dumb reasons.

The Seabees were happy enough to have him. He starts drilling with us next month :)

mrapathy2000
February 12, 2004, 12:08 AM
check out the indymedia website.

|about section top of page
Indymedia is a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage. Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth.| :scrutiny:

also seems to be some eco/anti-war hippy type articles.


war with china or north korea is last thing we need at moment. specially when you figure the nuke factor. .

I think if anything the draft system needs updating. we also should probably update nuclear protocals that whole taking a attack and only responding after is kinda lame all they have to do is launch everything they got first attack.
a anti missle system would be nice, heck russians have it.

I think they would begin to lax recruiting restrictions before they have any sort of draft. navy seems to have less restrictions or is less picky than marines and army.

Stand_Watie
February 12, 2004, 12:36 AM
The legislation in question is DRT. It was a DEMOCRAT driven attempt to sabotage Bush's Iraq plans.



Check out the sponsors and co-sponsors. Unbelievable and outrageous that the left would sponsor an action and then use their own action as an attack on the administration.





S.89

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00089:@@@X

Sponsor: Sen Hollings, Ernest F. [SC] (introduced 1/7/2003) Cosponsors: (none)

H.R. 163


http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:@@@P

Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 1/7/2003)

Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/7/2003 [HI-1] Rep Brown, Corrine - 1/28/2003 [FL-3]
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/28/2003 [MO-1] Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 1/7/2003 [MI-14]
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 1/28/2003 [MD-7] Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 1/28/2003 [FL-23]
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 1/28/2003 [TX-18] Rep Lewis, John - 1/7/2003 [GA-5]
Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/7/2003 [WA-7] Rep Moran, James P. - 1/28/2003 [VA-8]
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 1/28/2003 [DC] Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/7/2003 [CA-13]
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 1/28/2003 [NY-12]

Bill Hook
February 12, 2004, 12:49 AM
Charlie Rangel spouted off something about this nearly a year ago - I guess his buddies picked it up.

Stand_Watie
February 12, 2004, 01:12 AM
Charlie Rangel spouted off something about this nearly a year ago - I guess his buddies picked it up

The bill referenced is Charlie Rangel's year old bill. Notice that Hollings couldn't even find one co-sponsor in the senate.

Pendragon
February 12, 2004, 01:20 AM
OMG!

They got 28 MILLION MORE DOLLARS!

That must sound like a lot of money to the no-good-niks.

HunterGatherer
February 12, 2004, 05:24 AM
Losing the draft was the best thing that ever happened to our military.

Which is not in any way meant to say that there were no honorable/brave/etc. draftees. By far and away there were. It's just to say that an all volunteer force is infinitely better. It's absolutely amazing the amount of morale damage one dirtbag can do. Better that they stay wherever they are.

And if you really think about it, if a country is such that people will notvolunteer to defend it, then it simply isn't worth defending.

Stand_Watie
February 12, 2004, 06:00 AM
Losing the draft was the best thing that ever happened to our military. Which is not in any way meant to say that there were no honorable/brave/etc. draftees. By far and away there were. It's just to say that an all volunteer force is infinitely better. It's absolutely amazing the amount of morale damage one dirtbag can do. Better that they stay wherever they are.

Donald Rumsfeld expressed similar sentiments when questioned by Charlie Rangel while he (Rangel that is) was proposing S. 89.

Waitone
February 12, 2004, 09:00 AM
Relax. Ain't gonna happen.
--"The People" don't want it
--The "establisment" don't want it
--The "military industrial complex" don't want it
--Some democrats are the only ones who want it.

Note: since we are beginning to relive the 60's and the Vietnam War in honor of Candidate Kerry, I "dust off" (another term) the language of the time. Feel free to contribute.

Groovey, Man!

Mulliga
February 12, 2004, 09:43 AM
I'm taking the advice I got in "Unintended Consequences." If they start drafting people, I'll volunteer for military service immediately - don't want to get stuck with a bunch of draftees.

Sean Smith
February 12, 2004, 09:46 AM
This story is a joke.

clubsoda22
February 12, 2004, 10:26 AM
I really doubt it. It would be a political kiss of death, for one thing.

Not that i think it will happen, but why that would matter to a president in his second term is beyond me.

As far as a publication from vancouver saying america will restart its draft, it's probably just a way to increase to population of canada (as drafts tend to do).

WT
February 12, 2004, 11:26 AM
Yawn ......................

Art Eatman
February 12, 2004, 12:15 PM
Now, now, mulliga, I wuz a Draftee...

While I don't advocate re-establishment of the Draft, there is some points to consider: There was a broader cross-section of the country represented by Draftees, insofar as social and income "classes". It was indeed more of a Citizen Army. It also provided a pool of guys who had some two years of militry training, who learned many other non-military lessons which were useful in their later years.

But, as is often said, it was indeed a different world, fifty years ago.

Art

buzz_knox
February 12, 2004, 12:22 PM
Not unless we got into a real world war.

Mark Tyson
February 12, 2004, 12:32 PM
From what I have read (particulary in an Atlantic Monthly column this month) and frmo what I have heard the military is in bad shape. Stop losses are being imposed, enlistments and reenlistments are down. The government has several options:

1. Increase funding
2. Reduce commitments
3. Siphon money from acquisitions and other defense sectors to pay for personnel
4. Conscription

The draft is, in my opinion, so politically untenable that it would not be possible to impose.

Dorrin79
February 12, 2004, 12:47 PM
I sure hope not. Although I'm now old enough to not be eligible, the draft is really, really evil.

No man (or woman) should be made a slave by the state, regardless of the cause.

Mark Tyson
February 12, 2004, 01:09 PM
If they do reinstate the draft at least they ought to limit draftees to support roles.

wingman
February 12, 2004, 01:25 PM
No man (or woman) should be made a slave by the state, regardless of the cause.

GOD help us.


Relax. Ain't gonna happen.

Ha, never say never.

The People" don't want it

Yep, especially mom of the overweight 22 year old setting on the sofa playing
with his xbox.


We need the draft now more then ever and in time it will be reinstated.
:banghead:

yayarx7
February 12, 2004, 01:59 PM
ummmm..

OK, there are already more people on active duty then congress is willing to pay for, and some of you are worried about drafting thousands upon thousands more. Never happen. Congress will never get off the money. Rumsfeld already has to deactivate thousands of reservists every year to get them off the payroll, only to activate them later.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 12, 2004, 02:39 PM
Stand_Watie nailed it - the Democrats introduced this bill in both the House and Senate (and both bills have near zero support).

I think it is just partisan politics at Indymedia - they are trying to scare the ignorant into a anti-Bush stance (if you don't vote for the Dem candidate, you'll get drafted and die in Iraq!)

Fastlane
February 12, 2004, 04:13 PM
Wingman:

Who do you think will be drafted?

The rich or the poor?

The politicians son or the average Joe son?

What percentage of minorities will be drafted?

Will the draft be as fair as our last draft?

You are not going to try and tell me that the draft will be for everyone with out any favoritism are you?

Cosmoline
February 12, 2004, 04:30 PM
This is left-wing fear mongering. The only ones pushing for the draft are left wing senators and reps who see it as a way to whip up public discontent over the war. It's politics at its worst. The DOD has no interest whatsoever in a draft. Selective service is only being propped up as a job-creation program.

FOr example:

"Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and H.R. 163 forward this
year, entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003,"

NO IT DID NOT!!!!!!! Left wingers brought these bills forward and they're being buried in committee, never to see the light of day. man this pisses me off.

bountyhunter
February 12, 2004, 04:37 PM
YES.

The services have implemented the "stop-leave" orders against reservists presently serving which basically means they can not leave the service, for an indefinite period of time. If there is an occipation force stretching out over the next few years (which seems very likely) the draft could be required to replace personnel overseas.

Welcome back to the 60's.... except, in those days you could join the reserves or national Guard to avoid combat. Not so any more, they are the first ones mobilized now.

bountyhunter
February 12, 2004, 04:39 PM
The DOD has no interest whatsoever in a draft.

I'd like to hear something from Bush on that subject, not that I'm doubting your authority in such matters.

MeekandMild
February 12, 2004, 04:42 PM
Looks like something out of the 1964 DNC playbook. Lest we forget, every Democratic president since Truman has entangled us in some nasty war somewhere, all in the name of UN interventionism. :barf:

bountyhunter
February 12, 2004, 04:44 PM
I think it is just partisan politics at Indymedia - they are trying to scare the ignorant into a anti-Bush stance (if you don't vote for the Dem candidate, you'll get drafted and die in Iraq!)

I can't recall the last time I heard something so shameful. Wait.... actually, I can. It was when the repubs used the old scare tactics of "anybody who votes against Bush is a terrorist supporter" to whip through the bill to authorize the war.... to convince "the ignorant" that attacking Iraq would make them safer from Osama Bin laden and Al Qaeda.... which was a pure lie.

Politics in Washington... what's next, beer being sold in bars?

bountyhunter
February 12, 2004, 04:48 PM
Lest we forget, every Democratic president since Truman has entangled us in some nasty war somewhere, all in the name of UN interventionism.

Last time I checked, the president who started this nasty war was republican, and he did indeed use the UN flag to sanction his war. he even stood before the UN after he did it and said it was all done to "defend their authority".... and he said it with a straight face, amazing since they had previously told him they would not sanction military action and he told them to piss off calling them "irrelevant".

his democratic predecessor tried three different covert ops to kill the ACTUAL threat to the US (Osama Bin Laden) which failed, but he didn't start a war.

Delmar
February 12, 2004, 05:17 PM
Yeah, sure-gonna start another draft:rolleyes:

The next unsponsored bill will be to dig up General Hershey and prop him up in a chair to direct the whole thing......

Before they could even think about starting a draft, the government would have to re-open a whole bunch of closed down military bases, refurbish or replace the derilect buildings, train up a whole bunch of cadre just to get the draftees into some semblence of a basic training, and that doesn't even address the weapons and equipment side of it.

Just look at the hoops this country had to jump through to gear up for WWII, and FDR started that before our entry into the war.

I'm not sure if we even have the manufacturing base anymore, since most of the steel industry is overseas, along with clothing manufacture and what not.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 12, 2004, 05:20 PM
The services have implemented the "stop-leave" orders against reservists presently serving which basically means they can not leave the service, for an indefinite period of time.

Bountyhunter, the Army (not all services) has implemented stop-loss orders for those troops who are currently in Iraq or deploying to Iraq. The idea behind this is to keep units cohesive and limit personnel turnover while in combat operations. This is well within the contract that all service members sign even if most don't care for it. Note that it not only stops people from leaving the service, it also stops them from rotating to other units or taking promotions to higher echelons in the case of some officers.

There is not going to be a draft over Iraq - a fact you seem willing to acknowledge yourself when you state:

I can't recall the last time I heard something so shameful...Politics in Washington... what's next, beer being sold in bars?

Personally, I disagree with you about the necessity of invading Iraq; but regardless of whether it was or not, one party behaving like buffoons does not justify similar behavior from the other party. If it is reprehensible in one case, it is reprehensible in all right?

Cosmoline
February 12, 2004, 05:25 PM
I'd like to hear something from Bush on that subject, not that I'm doubting your authority in such matters.

You will hear nothing from GW on this. Precisely because he knows as well as his foes that for him to advocate a new draft would be political suicide. His silence speaks volumes. It's not as though he can "sneak up" on the country with a draft.

As far as the DOD, the very notion of FORCING your average 18 year old American into service and somehow preparing him for today's battlefield is tragically funny. It not only won't work, it won't work with bells on doing a jig. It's possible to force people to fight when you mass them together and hold pistols to the backs of their heads. It is most certainly not possible today, given the pool of people you'd be working with.

Cosmoline
February 12, 2004, 05:27 PM
Welcome back to the 60's....

This is precisely why the Dems are pushing for the draft. And why it will never happen.

wingnutx
February 12, 2004, 05:28 PM
Stop-loss orders are not unusual.

10 years ago we had a much larger military without a draft. We then RIFfed people out, and have been turning them away from recruiters in order to keep it small.

What makes anyone think we could not go back to those levels without a draft?

This is fear mongering, gleefully done by those who long for a return to the glory days of the anti-war movement.

Delmar
February 12, 2004, 05:38 PM
Cosmoline
I'd take another really hard look at your doubts about 18 year olds in this country. What you see on the news and what I have seen with my own eyes has been quite an experience. My son graduates in a month from Army A.I.T. and will be a combat medic. Sure, these kids volunteered to serve, but the X games went away, and training was good. The drill sergeants were as tough as ever-even if they aren't allowed to deck a trainee as they once were. I attended my son's graduation from basic, and all those kids were straight of back and clear of eye.

Way back in my distant past, I remember reporting to my own basic training at Ft Knox, Kentucky. Most of the people were draftees and most of them had attitudes about it, but I guarrantee you the drill sergeants were having none of it! They took a lump of stoop shouldered teenagers and transformed them into a company of soldiers in just a couple of months.

Sure, the draftees used to talk about the fact that they had been snatched up by government order, but you can depend on the fact that when it came down to it, they did their job. They had to-none of us would have gotten out of it alive if they hadn't.

bountyhunter
February 12, 2004, 07:13 PM
Bountyhunter, the Army (not all services) has implemented stop-loss orders for those troops who are currently in Iraq or deploying to Iraq.

Bartholomew:

The navy and Marines have also done it. My wife is the CO of a Navy reserve unit and it has been dropped on them as well, and they are really pissed. Their lives now hang open ended on a committment whose duration is unknown. Ther Navy rserve are attached to the Marines and we are hearing the same thing about them. It ain't just the Army.


This is well within the contract that all service members sign even if most don't care for it

Agreed. But most are patriots who signed aborad willing to defend the US, not spend their lives in a permanent baby sitting job trying to keep the lid on a sandy hell.

Note that it not only stops people from leaving the service, it also stops them from rotating to other units or taking promotions to higher echelons in the case of some officers.

Which conveniently freezes their pay grades where they are with no hope of advancement. That's rewarding service.

There is not going to be a draft over Iraq

Uh-huh. I just wish that came with a guarantee. I remember having a similar argument with my wife in 1989 when Bush the First was about to embark on the first Iraq war. her claim was that all through Viet nam, only a tiny percentage of reserve units were ever activated (so hers NEVER would be).... and then hers was the first unit activated in kali.

Bottom line is that the reserve and guard are about tapped out right now. We don't know how long the occupation will last and we SURE don't know where George is going to invade next if he gets a "mandate" in November... I'm thinking Syria is near the top of the list. So, we don't know if the draft is coming, but it sure is a possibility.

Personally, I disagree with you about the necessity of invading Iraq; but regardless of whether it was or not, one party behaving like buffoons does not justify similar behavior from the other party. If it is reprehensible in one case, it is reprehensible in all right?

YES. It's just that my hypocrisy buffer has reached saturation overload and I've about had it with repuboican kettles calling democratic pots black. In fact I am neither (I'm independent) but the amount of BS shoveled this year by the Bush administration has pushed me past the point of the benefit of the doubt. I didn't like it when Nixon lied, didn't like it when Clinton lied, and I like it less now because the lies got us in a disaterous war which will have grave consequences.

I don't think raising the draft issue is unfair because it's a real issue: we can debate the probability, but not that it's real. I think lying through one's teeth and repeating stories known to be false is worse.

bountyhunter
February 12, 2004, 07:21 PM
It is most certainly not possible today, given the pool of people you'd be working with.

I think he is referring to the fact that about 30 - 40% of todays children are obese from sitting on their butts playing video games and gulping fast food. They also don't have the same level of mandatory physical education required in high school that we did, and they would probably have a heart attack trying to run a mile. A large percentage of today's kids could not be turned into soldiers during the normal basic training cycle.

I suspect if you throw out a net for 18 year olds today, you would end up rejecting at least 50% for various reasons of health or fitness.

Lord Bodak
February 12, 2004, 07:41 PM
Considering we have an Army that can't even get enough ammunition to fire all its guns, and a Navy that is trying to build ships that use smaller crews because they feel like they have TOO MANY on board now, I just can't believe any of the rumors that our military is understaffed.

However, since I'm not 26 yet, of course the news disturbs me a little. If it were to happen before I turn 26, I would probably go sign up just b/c I'd rather be Navy.

Interestingly enough, the June 15th, 2005 date mentioned in that article-- is two days after I turn 26 and become ineligible.

Lord Bodak
February 12, 2004, 07:49 PM
One thing in the bill I agree with is modifying the draft system to require women to register.

It has never seemed appropriate to me that men & women can both choose to serve in the military but only men can be affected by the draft. It should be all or nothing.

YammyMonkey
February 12, 2004, 10:32 PM
If they're really trying to reinstate the draft, then why are enlisted people having to apply to remain in and young, cannon-fodder ensigns are being given the boot after attriting from the flight program? One of the guys I was in OCS with did well enough to get through the first part of the NFO program, but his score was too low to continue so they kicked him out.

Used to be that guys in the Jet pipeline who couldn't make their carrier quals would be given a shot at maritime or helos. Not anymore. No carrier qual, no more service.

Haven't heard anything new about the stop-loss orders yet. Originally it was just the SpecWar/Ops guys from what I heard. Doesn't really surprise me that they'd be doing it to the reserves though, since we seem to use so many of them in these conflics.

Edited to add:

If we do start a draft it'll be because so many useful people have been booted, not because we haven't had enough people.

clubsoda22
February 12, 2004, 11:19 PM
The one thing i don't like about the draft is the fact that if i go in there with my current skills and consciencious objector status they'll stick me on the front with a medpack instead of a rifle. Believe it or not, i'd rather do that than fight, but it's certainly not something i'd want to be doing.

Fortunately i'd be able to avoid it with college and when i graduated if my number came up i'd enlist with the ANG air medivac rather than get drafted.

Dorian
February 13, 2004, 04:11 AM
We can't be gearing up for the draft!!! I just re-enlisted and couldn't get into the INFANTRY!

YES I SAID I COULDN'T GET INTO THE INFANTRY IN THE USARMY. They are AT FORCE!

:(

c_yeager
February 13, 2004, 05:22 AM
media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth.|

Isnt this something of an oxymoron?

And i think that 28 million went to making public service ads reminding people to register for selective service. I dont really think that is indicative of "bringing back the draft".

Cosmoline
February 13, 2004, 04:41 PM
I attended my son's graduation from basic, and all those kids were straight of back and clear of eye.

Yes indeed--and that excellence is a DIRECT RESULT of the all-volunteer military system.

I'm sure in your day draftees were all 100% excellent. I have absolutely no faith that the same would be true today. The nature of the country has changed, and more importantly the nature of warfare has changed. The military needs people who volunteered to be there, not people who are forced to be there with a gun to their heads.

For my part, had I been drafted in 1991 when I was of age and a war was on, I would never have put up with getting kicked around at boot camp. The combination of abuse and being essentially arrested by my own government and forced to be there would have made me very, very, very upset. Very upset. Maybe I would have given up and resigned myself to my fate, but that's hardly what you need in a soldier. More likely I would have conspired to "disappear" the DI late at night with like-minded draftees. I know I would certainly do so today. I don't like being ordered around by the state. Not even a little bit.

OTOH, had the war gone bad in '91 and the call gone out for volunteers, I would have been in that line. I was ready to do it. And I would have served to the best of my ability, offering more than just a warm body. That's the magic difference between asking for help and pointing a rifle at someone and telling them to help "or else." I don't view being drafted any differently than being mugged. Both are violent assaults done under threat of death. Neither is the proper way to behave.

Sean Smith
February 13, 2004, 04:49 PM
YES.

The services have implemented the "stop-leave" orders against reservists presently serving which basically means they can not leave the service, for an indefinite period of time. If there is an occipation force stretching out over the next few years (which seems very likely) the draft could be required to replace personnel overseas.

First of all, oh great military affairs expert, the correct term is "stop-loss."

Second of all, it is not evidence of an impending draft. The fact that you think so basically just highlights your ignorance of military affairs. It is hardly unprecedented. For instance, they were implemented during the first Gulf War in 1990, and I'll be darned if the sky didn't fall back then.

Of course, using your criteria for self-appointed expertise on these issues, I'm an expert on the travel industry and psychology, and a professional artist. Who knew? :D

Mark Tyson
February 13, 2004, 05:09 PM
I think they'll try to use the individual ready reserve before they use the draft. For the army the IRR consists of certain members who completed less than 8 years of enlisted service. so if you did 4 years active you would be in the IRR for 4 more years, and technically could be called back to service.

If you enjoyed reading about "US gearing up for draft Could it be true?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!