Bush's Draft Dodge By Lawrence Korb & Max Bergman-LA Times

[KB]

Bush's draft dodge

The president doesn't support a draft, but our Army isn't built to fight a war such as Iraq without one.

By Lawrence J. Korb and Max A. Bergmann, LAWRENCE J. KORB is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a former assistant secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration. MAX A. BERGMANN is a research associate at the center.
May 26, 2007


PERHAPS THE ONLY issue in which there is near-total bipartisan unity in Washington is opposition to the draft. Those who oppose continuing the war in Iraq object to the draft for obvious reasons. But supporters of the president's Iraq policy should not get off so easily.

By vetoing the initial Iraq war supplemental spending bill because it contained a timetable for withdrawal, President Bush clearly believes that a substantial number of U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq for an indefinite period of time. But how are we going to sustain operations in Iraq beyond 12 to 18 months? The president insists that setting a withdrawal timetable will tie the hands of commanders on the ground, but it is not the timetable that will tie their hands. It is the breaking of the U.S. Army.

Currently, our ground forces, specifically the Army, are stretched to their limits. Our soldiers and Marines have been fighting in Iraq for more than four years and in Afghanistan for almost six. To meet the demands of the president's surge, the Army is scrambling to find enough troops. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates has already been forced to extend tours for soldiers serving in Iraq from 12 to 15 months. Soldiers are being sent back to Iraq for their second and third deployments; some have not even been home a year before being sent back. Many new recruits are being sent into intense combat in Baghdad without proper training. And in some cases, the Army has been so desperate that, as Mark Benjamin of Salon magazine first reported, it is even forcing injured soldiers back into combat before they have adequately recovered. Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey recently remarked that "the ground combat capability of the U.S. armed forces is shot."

Meanwhile, the National Guard is in even worse shape. The head of the National Guard has said that 90% of the Army National Guard is poorly equipped, raising real questions about the Guard's ability to respond to disasters like Hurricane Katrina and the tornado that wiped out Greensburg, Kan. Yet more than 13,000 Guardsmen have been notified that they likely will be sent back to Iraq in 2008.

The Army was simply not built to fight protracted ground wars like the one in Iraq. After the draft was ended in 1973, the current all-volunteer system was created out of the mind-set of "no more Vietnams." The Army was intended to be a small, highly trained fighting force that would act in an initial-response capacity to repel and counter the Soviets or other aggressors.

In the event of a major conflict, the active-duty Army would be supported in the short and medium term by the National Guard and Reserves. But if a conflict were to grow in length or intensity, the Army would revert to the draft. The all-volunteer force was not put in place to be an alternative to conscription but was intended to be a bridge to it. This is why we require young men to register with the Selective Service System when they turn 18.

Although the president and his administration have insisted that operations in Iraq will be difficult and will take a long time, Bush has done nothing to seriously prepare for such a long-term commitment. Considering the current state of the Army, if the president wants to sustain a substantial number of U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the next 18 months, he should call for reinstating the draft. That would be the responsible path.

Yet the president will never call for the draft. He knows the country would never support the level of sacrifice for this war that implementing a draft would demand. But this is one of the very reasons why the all-volunteer Army was designed the way it was — to prevent a commander in chief from fighting a war that lacks the support of the public.

Instead, the president will lean even more heavily on those who have already served. As a result, troops will be sent back for their third, fourth and fifth deployments; through "stop-loss" orders, soldiers will be prevented from leaving the service even though they have fulfilled their term of duty; deployments will be extended even longer; and the National Guard and Reserves will stay on duty in Iraq, further depleting our already thin domestic response capability.

In the end, the president will not only be unable to stabilize Iraq, he will have destroyed the finest army the world has known.

If the president is committed to fighting the war in Iraq over the long term, instead of simply running out the clock on his presidency, he should have the courage of his convictions and call for reinstating the draft. If not, the only responsible course is to set a timetable to bring the troops home.

[lider_r]

who needs a national guard for natural disasters when you can just subcontract out to companies like blackwater who are more than willing to accept thier republican buddies' no-bid contracts which ensure them outrageous profits at the taxpayers expense...

[Freedom-Fries]

time for another veto

[Hollis]

time for another veto


What is really funny about this is that the Libs want the US troops out NOW, but they also want a Draft, saying they need more troops for the war. I wonder did that say which war?

[Lefty]

Correct Hollis, but it makes perfect sense when you think about it. A draft would incite a greater push for the removal of troops from Iraq by the general public, and put more pressure on the republicans, that and media focus would most likely be placed on the president's approval of such a bill, thereby achieving a complete withdrawl from Iraq to the democrats favor.

[Hollis]

Correct Hollis, but it makes perfect sense when you think about it. A draft would incite a greater push for the removal of troops from Iraq by the general public, and put more pressure on the republicans, that and media focus would most likely be placed on the president's approval of such a bill, thereby achieving a complete withdrawl from Iraq to the democrats favor.


Possible or it could back fire, or the D's really don't have any intention to pull out. It would take years, maybe, to build up resentment to the draft, that resentment could easily be more directed to the D's than R's.

[Firetxmi]

Would you be opposed to a draft? I mean I hear everyone saying the equivilant to "go big or don't expect to win." If you really mean that then shouldn't we be having a draft in order to "fight this thing properly"?

[pistol]

Possible or it could back fire, or the D's really don't have any intention to pull out. It would take years, maybe, to build up resentment to the draft, that resentment could easily be more directed to the D's than R's.

Years? Start yanking kids away from their playstations and TVs, and sending them around the world to the desert to babysit Iraq's religious factions, and they are going to get pissed real quick.

[BloodyTalon]

Would you be opposed to a draft? I mean I hear everyone saying the equivilant to "go big or don't expect to win." If you really mean that then shouldn't we be having a draft in order to "fight this thing properly"?
A: throwing thousands of troops at something only works in Starcraft


B: I'd rather have a soldier who volunteered and considers his service a profession rather than a soldier who was drafted and considers his service an obligation.

[Dakota435]

Correct Hollis, but it makes perfect sense when you think about it. A draft would incite a greater push for the removal of troops from Iraq by the general public, and put more pressure on the republicans, that and media focus would most likely be placed on the president's approval of such a bill, thereby achieving a complete withdrawl from Iraq to the democrats favor.

If troop levels are insufficient it is not because of the lack of a draft, it is because several divisions were deactivated by Clinton for the "peace dividend"

The Army does NOT want a draft. They are very happy with their professional force.

The services are having no problems meeting enlistment targets and reenlistment rates are way above peacetime rates. Desertion rates are also well below peacetime levels.

Instead of making the soldiers' decisions for them, like they were children, on whether they should be there or not, let THEM decide. We will know something is wrong when desertions rates skyrocket and reenlistment rates plummet.

[BugHunt]

If troop levels are insufficient it is not because of the lack of a draft, it is because several divisions were deactivated by Clinton for the "peace dividend"

The Army does NOT want a draft. They are very happy with their professional force.

The services are having no problems meeting enlistment targets and reenlistment rates are way above peacetime rates. Desertion rates are also well below peacetime levels.

Instead of making the soldiers' decisions for them, like they were children, on whether they should be there or not, let THEM decide. We will know something is wrong when desertions rates skyrocket and reenlistment rates plummet.


So do you really think theres enough troops on the ground in Iraq?

And if there isnt where are they going to come from?

Maybe the admin shouldnt have treated there Generals like children in the run up to Iraq and given them the numbers and resources they asked for?

Even allowing them to plan for the aftermath wouldve been nice!

[Dakota435]

So do you really think theres enough troops on the ground in Iraq?

And if there isnt where are they going to come from?

Maybe the admin shouldnt have treated there Generals like children in the run up to Iraq and given them the numbers and resources they asked for?

Even allowing them to plan for the aftermath wouldve been nice!

I never said there were enough troops. Not in a position to judge.

To increase forces they need to create new unit and recruit people. It's not that hard.

How do you know what the generals asked for?

They did plan for the aftermath, but that was mostly the State Department's responsibility, which we all know is mostly a Democratic Party institution. The CPA was formed right after the war.

Things go wrong in any plan. Good thing we're not fighting WWII or you'd all be advocating retreat from Europe when the Ardennes campaign was launched and the US army was caught with its pants down.

[BugHunt]

I never said there were enough troops. Not in a position to judge.

If they arent on the ground now after five years - WHO MADE THAT MISTAKE. WHO IS TO BLAME? (im betting your gonna blame the dems).


Heres a clue from Micheal Yon (that notable bleeding hearted liberal) website -

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/the-decider-the-decisions.htm





To increase forces they need to create new unit and recruit people. It's not that hard.

Just as easy as that? No time lag due to training recruitment or equipping? Espically when you have a already EXSISTING army screaming about equipment shortages from everything from ammo to armour....presuamably the real units would get first pick.

And i guess all those stories about recruiters lowering standards or signing up those on antidepressants are just evil lib propoganda!


I guess you could argue that because its so easy to raise 200,000 more infantry and trigger pullers that the fact Bush hasnt done so is because there not needed! :D

QED - theres no insurgencey and all is actually well in Irak!




How do you know what the generals asked for?

Because theyve widely SAID SO. You do remeber a young chap called General Eric Shinseki? Head of the US army? He made the mistake of saying to congress he'd need hundreds of thousands to police the aftermath.....

Right before Rummy said he was "far off the mark" and named his replacement....

Theres any number of military planners whove come out and directly said - THEY WERENT ALLOWED TO PLAN FOR THE AFTERMATH DUE TO THE ADMINS DECISIONS.




They did plan for the aftermath, but that was mostly the State Department's responsibility, which we all know is mostly a Democratic Party institution. The CPA was formed right after the war.

Yes and the State Departments $5 million comprehensive plan for controlling the aftermath was discarded by which institution? Would that be the POLITICAL ADMINISTRATION?

Or did the all powerful Dems manage to mind control Bush and the lads?

IF A PARTY IS IN POWER IT MAKES THE DECISIONS.....hence Bush calling himself "the decider".




Things go wrong in any plan.

Bushes admin DIDNT HAVE A AFTERMATH PLAN.


Hence Rummies - "a bit of untidiness", "who couldve forseen it", "a few dead enders theres no insurgencey" or any other of a litany of phrases all pointing to his DENIAL of his mistakes....



Good thing we're not fighting WWII or you'd all be advocating retreat from Europe when the Ardennes campaign was launched and the US army was caught with its pants down.

No but id be questioning the government if the Ardennes campaigne kicked off and they spent several months denying that there men were under attack and pretended the werhmacht wasnt infact making an unexpected push.....


Or they suddenly decided to invade Russia whilst in the middle of fighting nazi germany.

Hey lets invade Astan and before weve finished kick off in Iraq as well!!! Yay cause multiple threatres is a proven method of making war fighting more efficient!!

[NeedsABetterName]

If they arent on the ground now after five years - WHO MADE THAT MISTAKE. WHO IS TO BLAME? (im betting your gonna blame the dems).


Heres a clue from Micheal Yon (that notable bleeding hearted liberal) website -

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/the-decider-the-decisions.htm





Just as easy as that? No time lag due to training recruitment or equipping? Espically when you have a already EXSISTING army screaming about equipment shortages from everything from ammo to armour....presuamably the real units would get first pick.

And i guess all those stories about recruiters lowering standards or signing up those on antidepressants are just evil lib propoganda!

A few recruiters does not mean the entire bunch.

I guess you could argue that because its so easy to raise 200,000 more infantry and trigger pullers that the fact Bush hasnt done so is because there not needed! :D

No, it's because our military is all-volunteer and he's not going to instate a draft that would only lower our military's professionalism. More troops doesn't always mean better troops. If I were in a foxhole, I wouldn't want to have to trust my life to some guy that didn't want to be there.

QED - theres no insurgencey and all is actually well in Irak!





Because theyve widely SAID SO. You do remeber a young chap called General Eric Shinseki? Head of the US army? He made the mistake of saying to congress he'd need hundreds of thousands to police the aftermath.....

Right before Rummy said he was "far off the mark" and named his replacement....

At least he's got the balls to admit he made a mistake instead of flip-flopping his position because the winds changed.

Theres any number of military planners whove come out and directly said - THEY WERENT ALLOWED TO PLAN FOR THE AFTERMATH DUE TO THE ADMINS DECISIONS.

Who are these people? Where/when did they say this?


Yes and the State Departments $5 million comprehensive plan for controlling the aftermath was discarded by which institution? Would that be the POLITICAL ADMINISTRATION?

Really? Where is this?

Or did the all powerful Dems manage to mind control Bush and the lads?

IF A PARTY IS IN POWER IT MAKES THE DECISIONS.....hence Bush calling himself "the decider".

Not all of them. It's called "seperation of powers," and that seperation involves both Congress and the Supreme Court. Congress happened to make the decision to invade, with a majority of that body supporting it. It wasn't just the Republicans, our new-age scapegoats, but our friends the Democrats too. Oops, I forgot appologizing for taking a position that became unpopular for the sake of getting votes/re-elected made it OK.


Bushes admin DIDNT HAVE A AFTERMATH PLAN.

Did you? Did you forsee an insurgency on the scale of the current one, complete with sectarian violence and the odd foriegn fighter thrown into the mix? What about other nations fueling it? If you did, allow me to submit your nomination for president to whatever political party you're affiliated with. I'm sure you'd do a great job.

Hence Rummies - "a bit of untidiness", "who couldve forseen it", "a few dead enders theres no insurgencey" or any other of a litany of phrases all pointing to his DENIAL of his mistakes....




No but id be questioning the government if the Ardennes campaigne kicked off and they spent several months denying that there men were under attack and pretended the werhmacht wasnt infact making an unexpected push.....

The was was "supposed to be over by Christmas" and they were fighting a "defeated enemy" at the time, remember? That was Market Garden in late 1944.

Or they suddenly decided to invade Russia whilst in the middle of fighting nazi germany.

Great comparison! We definately had an ally in Saddam! He was sure helping us defeat those dastardly al-Qaeda and their Taliban buddies!

Hey lets invade Astan and before weve finished kick off in Iraq as well!!! Yay cause multiple threatres is a proven method of making war fighting more efficient!!

It's easy to second-guess the Administration. It's not as easy to make those decisions with only the information they had at the time.

The message you have entered is too short.

[Hollis]

I guess it is about time that I admit my guilt, I am a draft Dodger too. seeeeeeesh.

[name already taken]

If troop levels are insufficient it is not because of the lack of a draft, it is because several divisions were deactivated by Clinton for the "peace dividend".
Because cold war had ended, or maybe Clinton wasn't minding his own business ?

I remember Bush 41 closing nuclear submarine shipyards and other stuff before Clinton, but maybe it's only me ?

[name already taken]

I never said there were enough troops. Not in a position to judge.

To increase forces they need to create new unit and recruit people. It's not that hard.

How do you know what the generals asked for?

They did plan for the aftermath, but that was mostly the State Department's responsibility, which we all know is mostly a Democratic Party institution. The CPA was formed right after the war.

Things go wrong in any plan. Good thing we're not fighting WWII or you'd all be advocating retreat from Europe when the Ardennes campaign was launched and the US army was caught with its pants down.

Shinseki is famous for his remarks to the U.S. Senate Armed Services committee before the war in Iraq in which he said "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for post-war Iraq. Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz publicly disagreed with his estimate.[1]
When the insurgency took hold in post-war Iraq, Shinseki's comments and their public rejection by the civilian leadership were often cited by those who felt the Bush administration deployed too few troops to Iraq. On November 15, 2006, in testimony before Congress, CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid said that General Shinseki's estimate had proved correct. [2]
more... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinsekii)


Bremer says troop levels too low in Iraq
In remarks published Tuesday, Bremer told an insurance conference at a West Virginia resort, "We never had enough troops on the ground" from the outset to stop what he described as "horrid" looting and the ensuing instability.
more... (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/06/MNGTU94EU21.DTL)
This, to name just these two.

Anyone who contradicts WhiteHouse policy gets fired. Bush never listens to his generals.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

But this is one of the very reasons why the all-volunteer Army was designed the way it was — to prevent a commander in chief from fighting a war that lacks the support of the public.

That's a ridiculous statement. An all-volunteer military ALLOWS the president to fight wars that lack the support of the public. In fact, that's probably one of the reasons it was created - so we would be able to stick out another Vietnam without people burning their draft cards and making a stink from up in Canada.

It's always politically easier to send volunteers into combat instead of conscripts.

[name already taken]

I never said there were enough troops. Not in a position to judge.

To increase forces they need to create new unit and recruit people. It's not that hard.

How do you know what the generals asked for?

They did plan for the aftermath, but that was mostly the State Department's responsibility, which we all know is mostly a Democratic Party institution. The CPA was formed right after the war.

Things go wrong in any plan. Good thing we're not fighting WWII or you'd all be advocating retreat from Europe when the Ardennes campaign was launched and the US army was caught with its pants down.



Gen. Eaton: If Bush won’t listen, Congress must. (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/14/iraq-general-stars-in-new-votevets-ad/)

EATON: President Bush says he listens to his military commanders. Well, Mr. President, I was one of those commanders, and you weren’t listening when we warned you of the dangers we’d face invading Iraq. Now our military is overcommitted, and America is less secure. Mr. President, you’re being told we need serious diplomacy, not escalation. And you’re still not listening. If the President won’t listen, Congress must.

To name just him... video (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/14/iraq-general-stars-in-new-votevets-ad/)

[name already taken]

Megaraptor;2524830']That's a ridiculous statement. An all-volunteer military ALLOWS the president to fight wars that lack the support of the public. In fact, that's probably one of the reasons it was created - so we would be able to stick out another Vietnam without people burning their draft cards and making a stink from up in Canada.

It's always politically easier to send volunteers into combat instead of conscripts.
A draft would draw troops from all social classes. So maybe some neocons kids could be drafted (in theory).

This alone could be a strong deterrent to the poursuit of Bush policies of preemptive war and open ended war.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

A draft would draw troops from all social classes. So maybe some neocons kids could be drafted (in theory).

This alone could be a strong deterrent to the poursuit of Bush policies of preemptive war and open ended war.

Exactly...and that's why we don't have a draft...

[ElHombre]

I never said there were enough troops. Not in a position to judge.

Cop out. If it isn't apparant that there weren't enough troops to secure Iraq by this point in time, you need to stay away from these discussions and get educated about it.


They did plan for the aftermath, but that was mostly the State Department's responsibility, which we all know is mostly a Democratic Party institution. The CPA was formed right after the war.

Here's some grade-school level education in gov't for you: The POTUS is responsible for the entire executive branch. That includes the DoS. Luckily, the President has several tools, such as appointing various officers to run those departments. So quit making more lame-a$$ excuses for the lack of planning. You sound like one of those 'the Earth is only six thousand years old' loons. Either Bush is in charge of this war or he isn't.

[BugHunt]

A few recruiters does not mean the entire bunch.


Ahuh you tell yourself that honey - and recruiting isnt having any problems and standards havent been lowered what so ever....despite all the articules to contrary.



No, it's because our military is all-volunteer and he's not going to instate a draft that would only lower our military's professionalism. More troops doesn't always mean better troops. If I were in a foxhole, I wouldn't want to have to trust my life to some guy that didn't want to be there.

Agreed draft would create a influx of lower motivated troops - its a sign of desperation. But at this stage you the US -ARE desperate. You simply lack the personnel to do the job properly. Not without a HELL OF ALOT more iraqis dieing and breaking your armed forces through too high operational tempo with too few troops/

Youve only NOW switched over to actual counterinsurgent strategy (what 3 or 4 years in?) and have a hope of winning - BUT YOU STILL LACK THE MANPOWER.



At least he's got the balls to admit he made a mistake instead of flip-flopping his position because the winds changed.

Wtf! Are you talking about Rummy or Shinseki? Cause Rummy took about 3 years too long to go (and had to be pushed). And Shinseki WAS FREAKING RIGHT ALL ALONG AND GOT BINNED BECAUSE OF IT.




Theres any number of military planners whove come out and directly said - THEY WERENT ALLOWED TO PLAN FOR THE AFTERMATH DUE TO THE ADMINS DECISIONS.

Who are these people? Where/when did they say this?


In the news - in the news papers. Every1 from pentagon planners to grunts to diplomats. Feck i bet even the 24/7 comedy show that is Fox reported on them. Try reading the papers or watching the news sometime hermit man.




Yes and the State Departments $5 million comprehensive plan for controlling the aftermath was discarded by which institution? Would that be the POLITICAL ADMINISTRATION?

Really? Where is this?

In the freaking bin where Bush Rummy inc. LEFT IT!

See my read a newspaper comment above! ;)





Or did the all powerful Dems manage to mind control Bush and the lads?

IF A PARTY IS IN POWER IT MAKES THE DECISIONS.....hence Bush calling himself "the decider".

Not all of them. It's called "seperation of powers," and that seperation involves both Congress and the Supreme Court. Congress happened to make the decision to invade, with a majority of that body supporting it. It wasn't just the Republicans, our new-age scapegoats, but our friends the Democrats too. Oops, I forgot appologizing for taking a position that became unpopular for the sake of getting votes/re-elected made it OK.

Eh? Didnt congress make those decisions based on frankly lies, spins and half truths served to them by a admin stampeding to attack Iraq. You know "yellow cake" africa and outting of all those CIA agents etc? You know riding roughshod and putting pressure on all those intell analysts and generals - and basically forcing them to come to your conclusions.





Bushes admin DIDNT HAVE A AFTERMATH PLAN.

Did you? Did you forsee an insurgency on the scale of the current one, complete with sectarian violence and the odd foriegn fighter thrown into the mix? What about other nations fueling it? If you did, allow me to submit your nomination for president to whatever political party you're affiliated with. I'm sure you'd do a great job.


I forsaw a heck of alot of strife and trouble EVEN WITH a realistic aftermath plan!

LOL to be frank any1 who didnt doesnt have the brainpower to light a VERY dim bulb....

Oh yeah you'd better nominate the washington analysts who wrote the below report! -

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070525/ap_on_go_co/iraq_missed_warnings


Or how about all those Generals who'd spent decades planning these sorts of things? Or all the diplomats?




Hence Rummies - "a bit of untidiness", "who couldve forseen it", "a few dead enders theres no insurgencey" or any other of a litany of phrases all pointing to his DENIAL of his mistakes....

No but id be questioning the government if the Ardennes campaigne kicked off and they spent several months denying that there men were under attack and pretended the werhmacht wasnt infact making an unexpected push.....

The was was "supposed to be over by Christmas" and they were fighting a "defeated enemy" at the time, remember? That was Market Garden in late 1944.

Yes hermit boy - its exactly those "the war will be over fast" sentiments which SHOULD be guarded against!

Why - BECAUSE HISTORY IS LITTERED WITH EXAMPLES OF WARS BEING MESSY. With everything from mission creep to unforseen occurances dragging them out.

HENCE YOU DONT GO TO WAR UNDERMANNED ON A WHIM.





Or they suddenly decided to invade Russia whilst in the middle of fighting nazi germany.

Great comparison! We definately had an ally in Saddam! He was sure helping us defeat those dastardly al-Qaeda and their Taliban buddies!

Holly **** youve actually made a good point!
YES SADDAM WAS A BUFFER TO RADICAL ISLAM AND IRAN.

A amazing two for one offer! Which means IF you pragmatic you'd only remove him IF your option had a cast iron certainty of bettering that situation....

If you were "doing if for the poor people downtrodden people (of Iraq)" you'd resource and plan it properly! Always bearing in mind there was many HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people being genocided starved and murdered in Zimbabwe to Sudan all saveable for much lower cost in money manpower and SOLDIERS LIVES.




Hey lets invade Astan and before weve finished kick off in Iraq as well!!! Yay cause multiple threatres is a proven method of making war fighting more efficient!!

It's easy to second-guess the Administration. It's not as easy to make those decisions with only the information they had at the time


As ive patiently explained the DIRE mistake of taking the Iraq campaigne too lightly was there in FREAKING SPADES.

Everyone from the HEAD OF THE US ARMY ERIC SHINSEKI, to any of the other pentagon planners so blytly overruled. To the hoards of diplomats both retired and serving who came out on record - BEFORE THIS MISADVENTURE GOT UNDERWAY.