Frohickey
Member
Doubt it.
A few MOABs will do the trick.
A few MOABs will do the trick.
Will The U.s. Re-open The Draft?
- Thread starter SNBA
- Start date
- Status
The "stop loss" thing
As someone noted earlier is in fact a "defacto draft".
With all due respect, I had heard the same thing put forth on shortwave radio that a draft renewal is being put into place for '05 and that funding has been increased for the selective service system.
who knows ?
As someone noted earlier is in fact a "defacto draft".
With all due respect, I had heard the same thing put forth on shortwave radio that a draft renewal is being put into place for '05 and that funding has been increased for the selective service system.
who knows ?
CarlS
Member
The Selective Service did not go away when the draft went away. Funds for it increase every year - salaries alone increase, computers are replaced, etc. The authorized manpower for the Selective Service has not been increased and the manpower levels are not funded at 100%. This funding has not been increased either.
The services do not want nor need the draft. They are no longer set up to handle draftees and all the problems that go with that. Selective Service is in place and has been in place so that it can be expanded and brought on line if needed. There is no move whatsoever by the pentagon to ask for a return to the draft. This is a rumor fostered by the left to cast fear that Bush wants a return of the draft. Please read my previous post in this thread on ways the services can and do solve manpower needs when shortages occur.
Do you not think that the news media would be shouting it to the roof tops if Bush were considering reinstating the draft?
Stop Loss is in no way a defacto draft. Stop Loss affects military members only. They are already in the service and would not be subject to a draft if there was one. The draft affects civilians. Stop loss prevents experienced, trained service members from getting out for a specified period of time. It only affects those who are at the end of their enlistments or are eligible to retire. It is nothing like the draft and has nothing to do with the draft. Stop Loss has been applied when we had a draft.
fix
Member
They are the ones proposing it. I submit that they are trying to spark more opposition to the war in Iraq, and thus President Bush, rather than fear of the draft directly. Clever strategy, but definitely underhanded.
CarlS
Member
You are correct, Sir. Still the rumors on the street say Bush wants the draft.
Aguila Blanca
Member
The reason stop loss might be called a de facto draft is that it represents involuntary service.
If I graduate from college and get drafted, I serve because the gummint tells me to serve, not because I choose to.
If I enlisted for a 6 year term of service and at the end of that term I chose NOT to reenlist so I could go back to being a civilian, and then I get hit with stop loss, I am no longer serving voluntarily, I am serving because the gummint says I must serve.
I see no fundamental difference. And I wonder if recruiters explain to enlistees that they may be subject to stop loss when their term of service expires.
CarlS
Member
Good question; it was explained to me along with the fact that I could be recalled as long as I had an MSO after I had gotten out following my two year hitch.
The biggest difference is that someone in the service has already volunteered/enlisted and should know that the possibility of Stop Loss exists. It's part of the package. Stop Loss also apples to warrant and commissioned officers.
Thumper
Member
How come we didn't hear all this BS about a de facto draft back when Stop Loss and Stop Movement held me up back in '90?
Election years bring out the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty.
Election years bring out the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty.
XLMiguel
Member
New draft? Not likely.
I was, however, really put off by my otherwise self-actualizing/strong woman's 'rights' neices (aged 14 & 17) whining when the subject came up last night.
I was, however, really put off by my otherwise self-actualizing/strong woman's 'rights' neices (aged 14 & 17) whining when the subject came up last night.
SNBA
Member
fix
Member
You do realize that we called up IRR personnel during the initial phases of the Afghanistan invasion right? Or were you just trying to stir up more anti-Bush sentiment?
CarlS
Member
"Rare" depends on the author's definition of rare. Since I don't know how he defines "rare", I will use a different word.
The call up of the IRR is not unusual although it does not generally occur unless there is a national emergency. IRR callups were initiated during Afghanistan and the current Iraqi war. The IRR was called up in the Gulf War. Every soldier who has been discharged from active duty and has not completed his/her military obligation knows that this is a possibility.
During the Gulf War, I personally initiated the call up of 33 retirees – members of the Retired Reserve. Some Retired Reserve members are being called up now, mostly on a volunteer basis.
This is no big deal. It is part of expanding the military in time of crisis; it is the price we pay for having a minimal standing active duty force. What is your point?
The call up of the IRR is not unusual although it does not generally occur unless there is a national emergency. IRR callups were initiated during Afghanistan and the current Iraqi war. The IRR was called up in the Gulf War. Every soldier who has been discharged from active duty and has not completed his/her military obligation knows that this is a possibility.
During the Gulf War, I personally initiated the call up of 33 retirees – members of the Retired Reserve. Some Retired Reserve members are being called up now, mostly on a volunteer basis.
This is no big deal. It is part of expanding the military in time of crisis; it is the price we pay for having a minimal standing active duty force. What is your point?
Waitone
Member
So how long will it be until the Pentagon and / or its civilian handlers 'fess up and say, "OK, we're strapped. Our obligations exceed our assets both human and materiel. We've cut back since the fall of the soviet union. The defense budget has been a honey pot for big spenders in congress. What with all that free money we tried to pay for our socialist paradise.
Well now we are stretched beyond our ability to complete our mission. We need more humans."
I don't think it will happen until after the next election. No one wants to pay for more bodies. So until then we'll let those left behind fill in for the government's lack of spending. We'll just let the mortgage company suck up the loss when the $70,000 IT guru plays soldier at 1/3 the salary. Hey, we all gotta make sacrifices right?"
Well now we are stretched beyond our ability to complete our mission. We need more humans."
I don't think it will happen until after the next election. No one wants to pay for more bodies. So until then we'll let those left behind fill in for the government's lack of spending. We'll just let the mortgage company suck up the loss when the $70,000 IT guru plays soldier at 1/3 the salary. Hey, we all gotta make sacrifices right?"
13A
Member
The reason we are short people in the Army is because they don't want to pay for them. Rumsfeld has said as much many times. He'd rather pay for all that "transformation" equipment and rebuilding Iraq.
The draft won't change that.
But, we'll see what happens after the "stop loss" period ends and soldiers vote with their feet. Some reservists are on their second combat tour.
The draft won't change that.
But, we'll see what happens after the "stop loss" period ends and soldiers vote with their feet. Some reservists are on their second combat tour.
rayra
member
Small Unit Cohesion, Continuity of Command, and specialized skill sets.
rayra
member
How exactly do you Draft someone who is ALREADY IN THE MILITARY?
"who knows ?" Definitely NOT the cranks on shortwave.
rayra
member
The reason you see no fundamental difference is that your very premise is fundamentally flawed.
Being subject to a Stop Loss (and Inactive Ready Reserve - IRR) is part of the Contract terms when you VOLUNTARILY Enlist. That the servicemember didn't plan on it, doesn't want it, or any other subjective concerns has NOTHING to do with the pre-existing binding contractual agreement to Serve at the behest / convenience of the Pentagon, once entered into.
The Pentagon is acting wholly within the Contracts freely entered into by the servicemembers.
rayra
member
That's it exactly. SNBA is a Dem pot-stirrer here to do nothing BUT that. Completely dishonest intent.
And nevermind the literally TENS OF THOUSANDS of WW2 vets that were recalled to serve in Korea.
rayra
member
You also could not be more wrong in your automatic distrust.
Pentagon manpower study after study, all of Rumsfelds reorganization plans from the very beginning - well before 9/11 - emphasized a major re-ordering of US forces, particularly the Army's heavy Divisions. The intent was to reorganize them in smaller more mixed units, similar to the Marine MEU / MAU units, more flexible, more readily depployable, more sustainable during such deployments. Those plans are still continuing. We have pulled 1/3 of the 70,000 unneeded troops from Germany - a garrison that was permanently reduced during GW1, and is once again being permanently reduced - units deploying from Germany to Iraq will rotate to CONUS when their tour is completed. Reduciton of the 40,000 man 'speed bump' in So Korea has been spoken of since BEFORE 9/11 as well, and we are shortly pulling ~1/3 of the troops from there, and further redeploying the remainder from their speed bump position between Seoul and the Norks massed cannons into a position in central So. Korea - to act as a defensive point for massive / rapid reinforcement AFTER Seoul is destroyed.
We have something like 1/5th of our total ground forces deployed in Iraq. The only 'overtaxing' going on is in the force restructuring and the last 15yrs overdependence on shunting infrequently needed specialized jobs to the Ready Reserve - THOSE are the poor bastards that were activated during GW1, they are again the poor bastards be stop-lossed and activated today.
Our 'obligations' certainly do NOT exceed our current means.
And spare me the whinge about soft vehicles and body armor. It's a HUGE Military, with large operations. Such a bureaucratic beast will screw things up, any time and any place you care to critique it. And yes, it costs lives. Tell it to Napolean.
rayra
member
We've ALREADY seen what happens. Units already through Iraq are experienced the HIGHEST RE-enlistment rates in decades.
And your point about Reservists bailing out is meaningless - who WOULDN'T bail out when they've built a civilian life and family and debt that cannot be sustained on much lower military pay and long seperations and risk of death. It is a chronic, organic problem of the ReservesREGARDLESS of Iraq, regardless of any overhyped 'overtaxed military'.
rayra
member
My father was a 26-yr Navy man, Enlisted, 'Mustang', and another 20yr+ career in the Defense Contracting field. He enlisted in ~1960, did two Destroyer tours off Vietnam.
I myself have 8yrs in the Marines & Reserves, overlapping GW1, and also a few years in Defense Contracting.
In other words, I've spent almost all of my ~40yrs soaking in the US Mil sphere. I'm most specifically NOT saying that makes me automatically right about these things, just saying 'I'm well informed and know what I'm talking about'.
Most importantly of all, everything I've said is factually accurate, and can readily be verified with intellectually-honest research.
It ISN'T 'feelings', 'agenda', or bias-driven (although some of it may be harshly delivered).
I myself have 8yrs in the Marines & Reserves, overlapping GW1, and also a few years in Defense Contracting.
In other words, I've spent almost all of my ~40yrs soaking in the US Mil sphere. I'm most specifically NOT saying that makes me automatically right about these things, just saying 'I'm well informed and know what I'm talking about'.
Most importantly of all, everything I've said is factually accurate, and can readily be verified with intellectually-honest research.
It ISN'T 'feelings', 'agenda', or bias-driven (although some of it may be harshly delivered).
Unlike everyone else, I believe the draft will be back. It's just a matter of when.
I see private business putting a lot of pressure on the .gov. Right now, I believe our troops are made up of reserve and national guard units. Keeping a position open for an indefinate period for an employee serving is an enormous task.
*sigh* I hate to think it, but snatching someone right out of school, prior to entering the private job sector does make a lot of sense.
Just because under the current conditions you're worse off doesn't mean that you didn't sign the contract. This includes people who enlisted active and are nearing their end of contract, as well as the guard/reserve forces who joined the military knowing they could be called up or held longer.
I was informed when I signed my enlistment of the terms, including the ready reserve, stop-loss, and other terms. There has always been an extension clause in place for 'times of conflict'.
The reasoning for all of this? It takes time to train soldiers. During a worst case scenario, the IRR and war time extension would be used to provide NCOs and trained troops, while the new trainees fill the bottom of the pyramid. I'm not as familiar for how it works with officers, but I imagine it's about the same.
That being said, I don't see the draft being implimented until and unless there is a dramatic need for soldiers that can't be filled with volunteers even with cash bonuses, reduced requirements.
Just imagine: How many people could you get to sign up given: reduced education needs (go to accepting GED's w/o waiver or even no HS diploma equivalent), eased physical requirements(age, weight, vision, hearing, certain other medical conditions), and a $20,000 signing bonus?
Military service is actually very selective right now, since we're easily meeting recruitment goals. There are estimates out there that we could easily meet 10x the current force levels and still stay 100% volunteer, simply by giving waivers out a little more, accepting more people.
I was informed when I signed my enlistment of the terms, including the ready reserve, stop-loss, and other terms. There has always been an extension clause in place for 'times of conflict'.
The reasoning for all of this? It takes time to train soldiers. During a worst case scenario, the IRR and war time extension would be used to provide NCOs and trained troops, while the new trainees fill the bottom of the pyramid. I'm not as familiar for how it works with officers, but I imagine it's about the same.
That being said, I don't see the draft being implimented until and unless there is a dramatic need for soldiers that can't be filled with volunteers even with cash bonuses, reduced requirements.
Just imagine: How many people could you get to sign up given: reduced education needs (go to accepting GED's w/o waiver or even no HS diploma equivalent), eased physical requirements(age, weight, vision, hearing, certain other medical conditions), and a $20,000 signing bonus?
Military service is actually very selective right now, since we're easily meeting recruitment goals. There are estimates out there that we could easily meet 10x the current force levels and still stay 100% volunteer, simply by giving waivers out a little more, accepting more people.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
In the 1980s we supported an all-volunteer force that had 800,000 more men than our present active duty force does today. No draft necessary.
There isn't going to be any draft. The Pentagon doesn't want one and we are a long way from the point one would be necessary even if we did want to dramatically increase the size of our military.
There isn't going to be any draft. The Pentagon doesn't want one and we are a long way from the point one would be necessary even if we did want to dramatically increase the size of our military.
- Status
