Prospect Of A New Military Draft Drawing More Attention, Concern

LA Times ^ | July 14, 2004 | Elizabeth Mehren

[Former Military Chick]

Los Angeles Times July 14, 2004 Prospect Of A New Military Draft Drawing More Attention, Concern By Elizabeth Mehren, Times Staff Writer BOSTON — No law has been signed to revive the draft, and the president, the Pentagon and the presumed Democratic presidential nominee all oppose forced military service. Yet as fatalities in Iraq increase and as troops see their tours extended, there is a growing concern across the country that a draft may be in the offing. At summer barbecues, kids' baseball tournaments and worksites, conversations focus on whether a new generation will be called to mandatory military duty. Parents, grandparents and others are wondering how long America can rely on volunteers and reservists to supply a strong defense. "I have thought about this a great deal," said Barbara Nicosia, who works in a bookstore south of Boston and is the mother of a 14-year-old son and 12-year-old daughter. "I have a strong memory of the draft during Vietnam, and I don't like where they are going with this," she said.

[Former Military Chick]

Yet another article in the Early Bird about the draft. I guess they think the more the write it the more it will come true????

[Former Military Chick]

wow I did the auto excerpt and it turned out to be a mess sorry folks

[NavySEAL F-16]

the presumed Democratic presidential

The correct word is DEMOCRAT

[Steve_Seattle]

It will never happen; it's bull****. This is just intended to frighten the soccer moms into voting for Kerry. Pure pro-Dem spin and speculation.

[RockinRight]

Yadda, yadda, yadda...

[Steve_Seattle]

It is really disgusting the way the media in general and the L.A. Times in particular are all pulling out all the stops for Kerry. This is a fabricated story, full of quotes from concerned mothers, trying to push people in Kerry's direction.

[Tallguy]

Another liberal journalist pining for the bad-ole-days of the Draft...

[dandi]

"as fatalities in Iraq increase"

They make it sound like our troops have been decimated.

[Steve_Seattle]

Notice that this is ENTIRELY speculation by the author; Bush opposes a draft, but the author implies he'll create one after the election. There is not ONE FACT coming from the government, not one quote from anyone in the administration - not even anonymously - to support this innuendo.

[cksharks]

These bastards never give up.

[Former Military Chick]

I like that "yadda", "yadda", "yadda", cuz that is how i feel as well. But for the last 4 issues of the military Early Bird there are have been several articles, written by different folks on this subject. Somebody seems to want to give this legs. Liberal or not it is out there, now what do we do?

[Bean Counter]

I just ain't buying it.

The first person I ever heard mention the Draft, was Charlie Rangle. This was his pet project to supposedly balance the military racially or some such nonsense...

Anyway, the 'Rats are adopting this draft crap just to keep things stirred up....

[ken5050]

Respectfully..you seem a tad fixated on this subject..can one ask why?..the earth will be hit by a comet before we reinstitute the draft..

[AngryJawa]

How many times can the Administration, the SecDef, JCS Chairman, and any number of generals SPECIFICALLY state that they do not need, do not want, and have no plans for reconstituting the draft?

These braying jackasses on the left have got a serious hearing problem.

[TraditionalConservative]

This has already become an election issue, which is obvious; the fear associated with the subject is obvious as well. No one wants to vote for a "draft" president, and potentially both candidates could use it against the other for a variety of reasons: the right could say the left wants to implement it to even out racial and economic disparities; the left could say the right will implement it shortly after the next election because they know they're in a "big mess."

I don't believe Iraq is a big mess at all, frankly, but I do believe in the Powell Doctrine, which explicitly states that we must use overwhelming force to achieve our objectives: if we had ten times as many soldiers there, our men and women currently serving would have protection 10-fold of what they have now. An additional factor is that men and women serving there right now - including my friends, family and neighbors - have been there for 18 months, some continuously with routinely rejected R&R. Our people need a break. Putting our pilots on methamphetamine to keep them awake long enough to fly 36-hour sorties and having exhausted troops running continuously in 120 degree heat is not the answer. Frankly, we're overextended, we need twice as many troops as we have, and if people won't volunteer to step up to the plate, we'll have to make them through a draft. We wanted this war, so let's go fight it.

[bagman]

What people don't understand is that the military is a high-tech operation now. It needs career soldiers (and sailors, airmen, marines, etc) rather than draftees who would be in for a couple of years and then be gone. The present weapons, tactics, and doctrines are not suited to a conscript army.

[Former Military Chick]

Ken, I am fixed on it, because, folks like me know the truth, but, others who are not informed read this in their paper and believe it will happen. They might believe a comet will hit their living room as well. It is a pattern. I resent it being pushed like a narcotic.

[Former Military Chick]

This has already become an election issue, which is obvious; the fear associated with the subject is obvious as well.

Thank you kind TC, your words are much better then mine as to why I post these articles on the draft. There is a pattern, I agree this will be a an issue, is an issue for this election. I suppose the best one can do, write your paper posting an oped expressing the lack of merit the draft has. Just a thought.

[meenie]

If the armed forces are so professional, high tech, so specialized, why are they yanking all the pot-bellied NG's and Reserves in that have not been in condition for years? Can we say cannon fodder or mujadeen target practice? I thought so. The requirement is a body temperature and good pulse, as it has always been.

[ken5050]

Fair enough..no argument with that...BTW....did you see my legnthy comment to you yesterday..

[TraditionalConservative]

Indeed, you are absolutely correct: we have had a full professional military for decades, the best the world has ever seen. However, 18+ months on patrol, with little to no relief, in 120+ degree weather, makes even the most hardened professional less apt.

These conditions result in combat fatigue, PTSD, low morale, decreased concentration and increased tendency to make critical errors in judgment, to name a few. Soldiers need six months on, and significant time off. I'd advocate a heavy, heavy troop rotation, because fresh soldiers are needed. If adequate fresh soldiers are truly not available - as has been testified to by the Pentagon - we need a draft. Why? Because who makes a more effective soldier, one fresh out of boot, or one who has been on the job continuously for 18 months? We may hold differing views on the subject, but everything I've seen testifies to the fact that human beings need rest - more rest than our troops are currently receiving.

[bagman]

I agree that we need to increase troop strength, for the reasons which you mention, as well as other reasons.

A draft will not solve the problem though.

If we need more military personnel, then we have to find a way to persuade people to enlist (or take a commission).

[bagman]

Admit it, you don't have a clue.

[mombonn]

The first person I ever heard mention the Draft, was Charlie Rangle.

Actually, Nick Smith (Turncoat R - MI) mentioned it almost a year before Rangel.

Congressmen introduce new military draft bill - Nation
- Nick Smith and Kurt Weldon - Brief Article
National Catholic Reporter, Feb 1, 2002 by Gill Donovan

Two members of Congress have introduced a bill into the House of Representatives that requires men between the ages of 18 and 22 to serve up to one year of military service.

The introduction of the bill comes despite President Bush's assurance in late September that no military draft is being considered (NCR, Oct 19, 2001).

The "Universal Military Training and Service Act of 2001" was introduced by Nick Smith, R-Mich., and Kurt Weldon, R-Pa. It has been referred to the Armed Services Committee and may be brought before the current session of Congress.

Should the bill pass, it would require "the induction into the Armed Forces of young men registered under the Military Selective Service Act," and authorize "young women to volunteer, to receive basic military training and education for a period of up to one year."

The basic military training would include instruction in military tactics, history classes and international relations.

Those who claim conscientious objector status "because of religious training and belief" may be judged exempt from the "combatant training component" of service, but would still have to take part in other required education training.

Briefs, gathered from news services, correspondents and staff, are compiled and edited by Gill Donovan.

Per: Cnn.com/inside politics:

Rangel calls for mandatory military service Monday, December 30, 2002 Posted: 1:46 PM EST (1846 GMT)

Rangel introduces bill to reinstate draft Rumsfeld says he sees no need for military draft Wednesday, January 8, 2003
Posted: 4:28 AM EST (0928 GMT)

[facedown]

...as fatalities in Iraq increase...

This phrase always bugs me.

There is no way for fatalities to decrease.

Similarly, "mounting casualties", as though there's any way for them to "unmount".

[Theophilus]

The Rangel and Hollings bills would make 18- to 26-year-olds eligible for the draft, with almost no exemptions. Those unfit for military service because to health or other impairments would perform community service.

why not enslave everybody? from each according to his abilities. these gentle are purely evil.

[TraditionalConservative]

I agree that offering better benefits/pay and getting more people to enlist is a good idea, but considering the way the war is being portrayed, and the fact that more young people are getting jobs than two years ago, that won't be easy.

My personal favorite solution is to get the coalition of the willing more involved. Logistical support is nice, but troops are better. I'm upset that NATO and Western Europe refuse to get involved in Iraq, but I'm even more upset that our main coalition "partner," the UK, only has what - 1/10 the number of troops there as we do? What kind of partner is that? To the royal armed forces, I'd say put down the fish n' chips and chip in to help give our kids some shore leave.

[Former Military Chick]

I appreciate that you respect (at least it appears that way) my point of view. Yes, I recall your post from yesterday. I just feel strongly that this needs to somehow lose it's momentom. I am sort keeping track every morning as I read the Early Bird how many articles have draft as an issue.

But, frankly I am more outraged on the Taxpayers to pay for Janklow manslaughter trial

I know friends are outraged, but, I thought more folks on FR would be as well. Anger being pulled in 2 ways right now.

[ken5050]

I respect your concern, indeed, you "outrage"..your point of view ..however, anything that Charlie Rangel's behind I tend NOT to get too worried about..I don't think it has any momentum..because most of the Dems wouldn't support it...remind yourself that they flagellate this issue because they have nothing substantive to talk about...

[meenie]

The only clue I have is that we are calling more Reserve forces up than any period since WW II. I also have a clue that when I was in during the Korea war, NG's and reserves were very unprepared due mostly to their not being in a conditioning program.

They were older which didn't help their endurance and preformance compared to their younger brethern. Now that you have all the clues, the first clue is that you should be a veteran with actual experience and know-how. You should also be familiar with training programs at our training centers as I am because of my contracting duties. I am not criticizing the reserve and NG forces, they are a back-up force to be used in emergencies and special situations.

They should not be expected to enter a fray with the endurance and training that the regular troops have. Now with your expert and knowlegeable advice, you can rip them out of their jobs and lives in civilian life, send them into combat, and suffer a higher rate of death as they are now doing, and everything is a ok as long as you set on your duff as an expert on all things military.

[bagman]

Those being called up are not being called up to use as cannon fodder. The last thing that the commander of a battalion wants is a soldier who will be a liability, risking the endangerment of his comrades should he fail to perform his mission.

That was my objection to your post.

I still don't get the argument. The reserves are being called to active duty, which is part of their obligation, so we need to institute a draft?

I don't disagree that military strength must be increased. I don't disagree that the extended-length tours of duty being required of the reserves is not desirable. We certainly need more regular troops. My disagreement with you and some others is that I don't see the draft as being a solution to the manpower issue.

[meenie]

I believe a more valid question is why do we need so many troops now? 178 bases around the world sounds excessive to me. That means that there are probably 160 garrisons beside Iraq and Afghanistan doing what? With more than a million in the armed services and we need to rely on forty thousand NG and reserves to accomplish our mission in Iraq? Get real. The Pentagon has created a monstrocity that puts our other bureaucracies to shame. We don't need a draft.

We don't need garrisons all over the world projecting our military image. We need some common sense in the war on terror. That does not mean two hundred million dollar stealth fighters and the other tech toys that the Pentagon embraces. We need support for the boys on the ground including personnel that can pull their share. Unfortunately the retread that was mustered out twenty years ago that leaves a business and family does not fill the need. It is unfair to them and unfair to the forces they enter, they've served their time.