Senator says US may need compulsory service to boost Iraq force

Status
Not open for further replies.

w4rma

member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
724
Location
United States of America
27 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A senior Republican lawmaker said that deteriorating security in Iraq may force the United States to reintroduce the military draft.

"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq.

"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."

The Nebraska Republican added that a draft, which was ended in the early 1970s, would spread the burden of military service in Iraq more equitably among various social strata.

"Those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and lower middle class," he observed.

The call to consider a imposing a draft comes just days after the Pentagon (news - web sites) moved to extend the missions of some 20,000 of the 135,000 US troops in Iraq.

Some critics of the US-led occupation complain that military planners used too few troops to subdue Iraq, and insist that more military muscle will be needed to restore order.

The US-led military coalition was put under further strain by the announcement this week by coalition members Spain and Honduras that they would withdraw their military contingents from Iraq.

Meanwhile, witnesses at the hearing, including academics and former US officials, expressed concern about ongoing flareups of violence in Iraq this month -- the bloodiest yet for US troops.

"I think it's clear that pressures in Iraq have reached the boiling point," said Samuel Berger, national security adviser during the Bill Clinton (news - web sites) administration, who called for an increase in troops there, and a "genuine, non-grudging effort to internationalize the enterprise in Iraq, both military and civilian."

"We've got to be prepared to give up our hammerlock on decision making in exchange for genuine burden sharing."

Richard Perle, a former White House adviser who currently serves as a fellow at a conservative think tank, advised against adding troops or extending the date of handover of Iraqi sovereignty beyond the currently-set June 30 date.

"It is essential that we not delay the handover of sovereignty set for the end of June, even if there is continuing violence by those who know they have no place in a decent, democratic Iraq," he said.

Perle also warned against entrusting the United Nations (news - web sites) with the post-occupation administration of Iraq, saying UN involvement should be kept at "an absolute minimum."

"A large UN contingent in Iraq ... would do more harm than good," Perle said.

"It would discourage the assumption of sovereignty by Iraqis themselves. It would drain resources urgently needed for the development of Iraq's economy," Perle said.

A senior Democrat meanwhile, lashed out at the White House for failing to send a top administration official to appear before the panel.

"I think it is outrageous that the administration has not provided every witness we've asked for," said Senator Joseph Biden, the highest-ranking Democrat on the committee.

"The fact that they are not prepared to send a witness means that they are either totally incompetent and they don't have anything to tell us ... or they're refusing to allow us to fulfill our constitutional responsibility" of congressional oversight, Biden said.

The committee's Republican chairman, Richard Lugar, also slammed the White House for "inadequate planning and communication related to Iraq."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...afp/us_iraq_military_draft&cid=1521&ncid=1480

Imho, the draft will start very soon after the November elections. They're softening us up for it, now.
 
Oh for crying out loud. There's not going to be a draft. That senator is nuts if he thinks he's going to get that through congress.

The military has been trying to get more people for awhile now; they could easily do so, but there's a congressionally set cap on troop strength. Rumsfeld, for some reason that I can't imagine, has been telling congress that we don't need more troops, right up until recently.

They could bolster troop strength just as easily with a large recruitment drive. YOu'd then get higher quality soldiers than a draft could provide in any case.
 
You read the liberal websites, and they're quite open in discussing it: The sole reason they're demanding a draft is to make the war on terror poltically toxic. It's not necessary to conduct the war, it's necessary to end it.
 
They could bolster troop strength just as easily with a large recruitment drive. YOu'd then get higher quality soldiers than a draft could provide in any case.

Yep.

Talk to any recruiter about the number of potential enlistees they have to turn away due to standards.
 
Oh for crying out loud. There's not going to be a draft. That senator is nuts if he thinks he's going to get that through congress.
Nader Claims A Draft Is Imminent
United Press International
April 17, 2004,


WASHINGTON - Ralph Nader's independent presidential campaign sent an Internet "Message to America's Students" warning that a draft may take place if the war goes on.

"The Pentagon is quietly recruiting new members to fill local draft boards, as the machinery for drafting a new generation of young Americans is being quietly put into place," Nader said. "Young Americans need to know that a train is coming, and it could run over their generation."

Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese said the warning is based on the U.S. Selective Service System's recent call for draft board volunteers, an extended U.S. military and calls by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and Congress to expand the military, the Boston Herald reported Friday.
…
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_draft_041704,00.html

Not my favorite source, but he notes some important clues.
 
Oh, well, if Ralph Nader said it, I take everything back! LOL :D

That wouldn't possibly be an attempt to rally the young adult vote to the left of the political spectrum, would it? Scare them into thinking that bad old Bush is going to yank them out of college, force them into the Marines, and send them to Iraq?

Seriously, that's what I think this is. Election year tactic to rally the youth (my age bracket), who doesn't vote very much. I don't think a draft is in any way politically feasible, and while I oppose it on principle I don't think it'd be the end of the world, either.
 
Sure, pay 'em for the real risks and hardships involved and throw in some "booty of war" perks and you'll get all the soldiers you need. I suggest a fat surtax on everyone who enters a shopping mall or goes to the local cinemaplex for escape.
 
I'm not sacrificing my son for a bunch of sand money towel heads. Pull everyone out and drop the big one.
 
Oh, well, if Ralph Nader said it, I take everything back! LOL
They're definitely oiling the gears in preperation for one:

"SUMMARY: The Selective Service System (SSS) proposes to amend its regulations regarding the procedures for conscientious objectors, who have been placed in the Alternative Service Program as Alternative Service Workers (ASW), to appeal denied requests for job reassignments during a military draft. Civilian Review Boards (CRB), whose sole responsibility is to decide ASW appeals of denied job reassignments, would be abolished with their responsibilities transferred to the more numerous District Appeal Boards (DAB). Under existing regulations, the sole responsibility of DABs is to decide appeals of local board classification decisions. This organization change is necessary to ensure a more efficient and economical administration of the SSS. Its primary intended effect is to eliminate the administrative costs of maintaining separate appeal boards for ASWs without adversely impacting on the Agency's ability to expeditiously decide appeals of denied job reassignments or appeals of local board classification decisions. A secondary intended effect is to improve customer service to ASWs during a military draft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 6, 2004."
http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-02427.htm

The agency already has a special system to register and draft health care personnel ages 20 to 44 in more than 60 specialties if necessary in a crisis. According to Flahavan, the agency will expand this system to be able to rapidly register and draft computer specialists and linguists, should the need ever arise. But he stressed that the agency has received no request from the Pentagon to do so.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/164693_draft13.html
 
w4, go look up some of Jeff White's posts about the draft, and why it just plain ain't going to happen. Jeff is career military, and has been there, and done that, and understands what it takes to build up military numbers and strength. The draft isn't feasible or realistic at this point.

As Nightcrawler (who currently serves in the military) points out, a good recruiting drive will gather up everybody we need. Allowing the recruiters more leeway will also get the numbers up.

Plus a draft would be absolute political suicide, even if done after November, Republicans would lose a pile of seats in congress and the senate during the next administration, and it would be turning the white house over in '08. Nobody in their right mind is going to push a draft.

Most of the harping about the draft has been from people in the opposition party who have something to gain by scaring the 18-25 voting demographic. Nobody in the current military establishment that I know of is in favor of a draft.
 
I would go back immediately, if I was restored my former rank and today's payscale. Boot camp would do me some good.

Alas, I'm now too old.
 
The purpose of discussing a draft is to make Bush look bad, as no matter WHO brings up the topic Bush will get the blame. (Wonder what GOP Senator Chuck Hagel is up to . . . anybody know if he's a RINO?)
I'm not sacrificing my son for a bunch of sand money towel heads. Pull everyone out and drop the big one.
There's going to be a lot of this attitude - potential draftees will figure, "If the Prez and Congress aren't pulling out all the stops to win, why the %$#! should I risk getting my head blown off while the boss plays politics?"

Institute a draft, and you'll have bumper-to-bumper traffic on all roads leading to Canada.

Or in these days of "don't ask, don't tell" you'll have a mess of guys pulling a Corporal Klinger routine. :what:
The agency already has a special system to register and draft health care personnel ages 20 to 44 in more than 60 specialties
They'll have a terrible time getting people in their 30's and 40's to show up, especially if they're not reservists. Folks this age have learned to think for themselves, and won't easily be molded into the military model. Use force, and things will get real nasty real quick.
 
Just a few points:

Selective Service was reinstated in 1980. Service on the Selective Service board is in 20yr terms. The Pentagon isn't quietly recruiting new members to start drafting people. They are quietly recruiting members to replace the outgoing Selective Service members (who are only staffed to something like 30% of the recommended level anyway)

The calls for a new draft have not come from the Republicans so far; but the Democrats. The two bills attempting to reinstate the draft are both authored by Democrats (Chuck Rangel D-NY) and John Conyers (D-MI). In both cases I suspect blatant election year politics since in the previous three budget requests, Rangel voted down any attempt to appropriate money for Selective Service.

Finally, the military and the Pentagon, rather than trying to secretly implement a new draft to expand the military, are actually opposing any attempt to reinstate the draft. In response to the Rangel/Conyers bill, the Undersecretary of Defense prepared this report titled "Conscription Threatens Hard-Won Achievements And Military Readiness"

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2003/d20030114avf.pdf

As has been stated on here multiple times now, there isn't going to be a draft.
 
Additional clues

Summer 2003 – Philadelphia Draft Board members “unexpectedly†told to recruit new members for Board vacancies during Summer training. (from Nov. 3 Salon article)
http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/03/draft/index_np.html

July 25, 2003 – World Net Daily article on plans for the medical draft (HCPDS). System could draft up to 80,000 doctors, nurses and specialists, men and women.
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33754

September 3, 2003 – The Congressional Budget Office warns that “the Army lacks sufficient active-duty forces to maintain its current level of nearly 150,000 troops in Iraq beyond next spring (march 2004). "The Army does not have enough active-duty component forces to simultaneously maintain the occupation at its current size, limit deployments to one year, and sustain all of its other commitments" http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16689-2003Sep2

September 23, 2003 – Draft Board Recruitment ad appears on Defense.Link site. First public ad for Draft Boards in decades. Page scrubbed within a few days of being noticed by some media in early November. Spokesman says there is “no plan†to reinstate draft, which must be authorized by Congress.
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/sss092203.html

January 8, 2002 - On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act, supposedly to provide accountability education policies. Yet hidden within the 670-page piece of legislation is Section 9528: “…each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to secondary school students names, addresses, and telephone listings.†All schools must comply with this unfunded mandate or they lose their federal funding. This amounts to legislated blackmail for student names. The act also says: “A secondary school student or the parent of the student may request that the student’s name, address, and telephone listing … not be released without prior written parental consent, and the local educational agency or private school shall notify parents of the option to make a request and shall comply with any request.â€
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

Defense Department Deletes Notice About Draft Boards
http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/draft-boards.htm

Nov. 4, 2003 – NY Times article on Army Honor Guard Company B being sent to MidEast, revealing how thin troops are being stretched to cover the 2004-2005 rotation.
http://villagenews.weblogger.com/stories/storyReader$10007

Nov. 5, 2003 – Toronto Star article quotes Ned Lebow “This (draft board ad) is significantâ€, Lebow, a presidential scholar at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire and former professor of strategy at the National War College in Washington, adds, "What the department of defence is doing is creating the infrastructure to make the draft a viable option should the administration wish to go this route." http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...le&cid=1068073289288&call_pageid=968332188854

Nov. 5, 2003 – Guardian article on Draft Board ad. SSS spokesman Amon said 80% of 11,000 Draft Board slots are vacant. (2,000 local boards, over 8,000 empty seats)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1077906,00.html

Nov. 12, 2003 – “If President Bush is re-elected, it is likely that he will reinstate the draft. The war on terrorism will not end in Iraq, but instead will proceed into countries like Syria and Iran," said Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame.
http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/11122003/news/60246.htm

November, 2003 – Selective Service 2004 “Performance Plan†summarizes how $28 million will be allocated in 2004 to reduce draft activation time from current 8 months to just 75 days. Nation-wide Readiness Exercises, testing the Draft Lottery and examination system, as well as gearing up the Medical Draft (3.4 million doctors and nurses, men and women age 20-44 are eligible). Ominously, the Alternative Service delivery system for Conscientious Objectors is readied for the first time in decades, with the SSS being funded to compile lists of available Alternative Service jobs for those who win non-military CO status. All systems will be pushed to reach 95% readiness during 2004.
http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

Nov. 23, 2003 – Boston Globe article: “Army Reserve battling an exodus
War is seen as drain on ranks. The US Army Reserve fell short of its reenlistment goals this fiscal year, underscoring Pentagon fears that the protracted conflict in Iraq could cause a crippling exodus from the armed services.â€
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2003/11/23/army_reserve_battling_an_exodus

Nov. 24, 2003 – NY Times: Army plans for 100,000 troops until 2006 in Iraq.
http://www.iht.com/articles/118775.html

Nov. 26, 2003 – Ron Paul (R-TX) says “Draft likely to be reinstatedâ€.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul144.html

December, 2003 - Draft Board Recruitment ad re-appears on the Selective Service Home Page with 2 new sentences stressing the ad has “NO connection†to Iraq. http://www.sss.gov

December 22, 2003 – In an article entitled “Beware of Attempts to Revive Military Draft,†Newsday reports that “the Center on Conscience and War… executive director, J. E. McNeil… has heard of rumblings, from the Republican side of the aisle in Congress, about a draft after the electionâ€. The opinion piece worries whether a revived draft “would give this war-without-end presidency an endless source of warm bodies to pursue its cowboy foreign policy.†Author Keeler also wonders about a “February (2005) Surpriseâ€.
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion...,0,6735184.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

December, 2003 - The Selective Service Register magazine talks about the new Special Skill Draft, a top priority for Director Lewis Brodsky. Like the Medical Draft, the Special Skills Draft will induct men and women up to age 44 if they have needed DoD skills like computer expertise, engineering or they are a linguist. As with the health care draftees, no medical deferments are allowed except for total disability. Anyone with these skills will have to register with the SSS if Bush is re-elected and asks Congress for this. Moving quickly!
http://www.sss.gov/PDFs/NovDec2003-Register.pdf (go to P. 6) – from sss,gov home page

December 29, 2003 - WP article: “Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting, Orders Extend Enlistments to Curtail Troop Shortages†40,000 soldiers and Guard put on Stop-Loss. A “Draft Per Se†already exists! With the new stop-loss orders the Armed Forces actually go 20,000 past 480,000 active troops, to 500,000 active troops, the maximum before Congress steps in.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36979-2003Dec28.HTML
 
Just about every single article there is rehashing points that were made above. Once again, if we really wanted to increase the number of troops Rumsfeld would ask to change the recruitement caps.

And we should be prepared to hold a draft in case of a true national emergency. There is nothing wrong with the draft board being staffed, and them having the phone numbers of 18 year olds. Being able to call upon 80,000 medical professionals probably has more to do with the possibility of bio/chem attack on US soil than it does with drafting them and shipping them to Iraq. The one about the honor guard is from the village news, no surprise there, and just so you know, honor guard units are still actual military combat units, just like the blue angels and the thunderbirds are actually combat deployable fighter squadrons.

However none of those supposedly unbiased articles bring up the fact that A. The military doesn't want a draft. And B. It is political suicide to have one.

So unless the Posleen start landing shortly, I don't see a draft happening.
 
w4, do you have any clue whatsoever how long it would take to institute a new draft?

If they announced it on December 1st, it would probably be a year before the first draftees hit basic, and that is being generous, realistically I would guess it would be closer to 2 years. It would be very much in the mind of the voters in the 2006 elections. By the 2008 elections the issue would be extreamly fresh still as many of the initial draftees would just be finishing up their original tours.

You can draft piles of warm bodies, but you need officers and NCOs to train and lead them. You need bases to house them. You need units organized for them. You can't just wave a magic wand and create whole new homogenous combat capable units.
 
During the '80's and early '90's US troop strength was nearly 75% higher than it is now. None of those troops were draftees.
The only reason it isn't at those levels now is due to congressionally mandated budget cuts.
There is no need for a draft, nor will there be a draft.
As for the people harping about "StopLoss", it is nothing new. IIRC, we (in the military) were under a StopLoss orders during Desert Shield and Desert storm, when our troop strength was up.
Any of you other military folks remember the same as me?
 
If only this were true! Hey, Hagel suddenly sounds like Jeff Cooper!:D :cool:

Why institute a draft? For what? If we need more men for a push into Iran or Syria (if only), why not undo the Clinton cuts? Where would they put all the draftees? Where would they train? Where's the gear coming from?

Man, the black helicopter nonsense of the Left is just as goofy as the black helicopter stuff of the Right.:scrutiny:
 
Bob, I graduated high school in '93, not long after the Gulf War. At that time recruiters were turning away just about anybody who had any sort of problem and being very picky. I believe that was around the beginning of the massive cutbacks. Noboby wanted the fat kid with asthma and flat feet! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top