1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

US gearing up for draft Could it be true?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by jsalcedo, Feb 11, 2004.

  1. jsalcedo

    jsalcedo Senior Member

    Dec 31, 2002
    [ 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


    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


    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.
  2. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Dec 22, 2002
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    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.

  3. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Mentor

    Dec 24, 2002
    Winter Haven, FL
    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.
  4. Binkus

    Binkus New Member

    Jan 19, 2004
    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.
  5. wingnutx

    wingnutx Participating Member

    Dec 27, 2002
    Phoenix, AZ
    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 :)
  6. mrapathy2000

    mrapathy2000 member

    Aug 4, 2003
    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.
  7. Stand_Watie

    Stand_Watie Participating Member

    Jan 7, 2004
    east Texas
    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.



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

    H.R. 163


    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]
  8. Bill Hook

    Bill Hook member

    Jul 23, 2003
    Charlie Rangel spouted off something about this nearly a year ago - I guess his buddies picked it up.
  9. Stand_Watie

    Stand_Watie Participating Member

    Jan 7, 2004
    east Texas
    The bill referenced is Charlie Rangel's year old bill. Notice that Hollings couldn't even find one co-sponsor in the senate.
  10. Pendragon

    Pendragon Participating Member

    Dec 25, 2002
    Austin, Texas


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

    HunterGatherer member

    Jan 29, 2004
    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.
  12. Stand_Watie

    Stand_Watie Participating Member

    Jan 7, 2004
    east Texas
    Donald Rumsfeld expressed similar sentiments when questioned by Charlie Rangel while he (Rangel that is) was proposing S. 89.
  13. Waitone

    Waitone Mentor

    Dec 25, 2002
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    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!
  14. Mulliga

    Mulliga Senior Member

    Jan 13, 2004
    Gainesville, Florida
    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.
  15. Sean Smith

    Sean Smith Senior Member

    Dec 28, 2002
    This story is a joke.
  16. clubsoda22

    clubsoda22 member

    Jul 16, 2003
    SE PA
    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).
  17. WT

    WT Participating Member

    Jun 11, 2003
    Yawn ......................
  18. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Dec 22, 2002
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    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.

  19. buzz_knox

    buzz_knox Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2002
    Not unless we got into a real world war.
  20. Mark Tyson

    Mark Tyson Senior Member

    Dec 27, 2002
    Where the one eyed man is king
    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.

Share This Page