PDA

View Full Version : US readies for draft by 2005



M1A2U2
06-26-2004, 03:12 AM
U.S. Readies for Draft
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Friday, June 25, 2004
Despite denials that the U.S. plans to re-institute the draft, the Pentagon has stepped up preparations for a new Selective Service System that could allow for a full-blown draft by next year.


Every few months Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gets peppered with the nettlesome question about whether the administration, straining to keep boots on the ground around the globe, is considering reviving the compulsory military service draft – moribund since 1973. The answer is always an unqualified “No.”

Story Continues Below



Inquiries by NewsMax – and a persistent host of others, says the agency – to the Selective Service System (SSS) about an impending return to the draft are answered as well with an explicit canned denial:

“Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces – either with a special skills or regular draft.

“Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new.

“Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq.

“Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25.”

Is Getting Ready

But savvy draft-watchers, including author, radio personality and attorney Col. Ron Ray, USMCR (Ret.), dispute the “is not getting ready” phrase, suggesting that there is, indeed, evidence indicating a new, heightened urgency within the agency, which these days is independent and no longer falls under the aegis of the Department of Defense. Ray himself had served as a Pentagon official during the Reagan administration.


For sure, “The Selective Service System’s Annual Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2004,” is a document that leaves the careful reader with anything but the impression of a sleepy agency drilling for a fire it knows will never flare.


By early next year, the government will be test firing a mobilization infrastructure of 56 state headquarters, 442 area offices, and 1,980 local boards.

Funding is in the coffers to kick off a rigorous “Area Office Prototype Exercise,” which will “test the activation process from SSS Lottery input to the issuance of First Armed Forces Examination Orders.”

Ramping up is the “Selective Service System’s High School Registrar Program,” a plan to put volunteer registrars in at least 85 percent of the nation’s high schools – an increase from 65 percent in 1998.

At the head of the busy-work list – a no-nonsense commitment to report to the president by March 31st, 2005 that the system is ready to roll full steam within 75 days, which would clear the decks for a first lottery by June 15th, 2005.
Meanwhile, helping the agency to reach its goals and objectives is a little known provision of the No Child Left Behind Act that requires schools to provide contact information for every student – upon pain of losing federal aid dollars.

Standby Plans

Alyce Burton, a spokeswoman for the Selective Service, says that at the request of the Pentagon, SSS has been developing standby plans for drafting doctors, nurses and medical technicians.

Furthermore, SSS has been mulling draft procedures for other types of specialists – in particular linguists and computer programmers. But true to form, Burton is careful to add the stock denial: “We’ve been told that a draft of untrained manpower would not be necessary in the future.”

But that gratuitous disclaimer aside, Col. Ray, who defended Specialist Michael New, the U.S. soldier who refused to wear the U.N. uniform, tells NewsMax regarding the agency’s heady agenda: “If you were working for the intelligence service of an enemy foreign government, all the indicators are there [for a headlong ramp-up to a draft].”

Ray further points to what he suggests is a telling February 2004 statement the director of the Selective Service agency sent to the Pentagon:

“In line with today’s needs, the Selective Service System’s structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered toward maintaining a national inventory of American men, and for the first time, women, ages 18-34, with an added focus on individuals with critical skills.”

Despite SSS’s studious low profile and careful tidbits promulgated for public consumption, draft-return rumors recently abounded on the heels of word that the Selective Service was racing to fill vacancies on local draft boards. Advertisements were appearing in local newspapers calling for recruits to man the review panels.

Business As Usual

However, SSS quashed the furor by simply stating that all was just business as usual: The longest anyone can serve on a local draft board is 20 years and most of the members were appointed in 1980 when President Jimmy Carter reinstated registration for the draft.

What appeared to be a frantic exercise was nothing more than a mundane routine replacement of warm bodies, soothed the agency. The canned response by SSS to a frantic media and public:

“There is NO connection between this ongoing, routine public outreach to compensate for natural board attrition and current international events. Both the president and the secretary of defense have stated on several occasions that a draft is not needed for the war on terrorism, including Iraq.”

In truth, some experts don’t outright dismiss the government’s pro forma dismissals of an untrained manpower draft – at least for the near term.

At the heart of the matter is the election year, and selective service is a hot button issue that neither contestant in November is raring to push.

A recent CNN-USA TODAY-Gallup Poll indicates that no less than 80 percent of Americans are against a return to the draft. Furthermore, only 17 percent say they support a draft.

Little Support

It should be noted that just prior to the Iraq war, support for the draft was at 27 percent. And, finally, a no-brainer: the poll also found that young people were least likely to support a draft.

Second in the hit parade of reasons why an untrained manpower draft is unlikely at this time is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. When he was a young congressman from Illinois, Rumsfeld introduced one of the first bills in Congress to abolish the draft.

These days the still anti-draft Rumsfeld is careful not to suggest that draftees are by their nature second-class soldiers because they are coerced to serve.

Having taken a hit for just that sentiment not long ago, the secretary now points to the more academic of his rationales – high turnover and a complicated deferment system that a draft engenders.

Rumsfeld’s most recent ****ouncement on the subject: “I don’t know anyone in the Executive Branch who thinks it’s appropriate or necessary to reinstitute the draft.”

Third reason: The Army – albeit experiencing serious shortfalls of military policemen, linguists, interrogators, civil affairs specialists and medics – has ready access to a handy pool of manpower, the Individual Ready Reserve, the inactive component of the military that consists of vets who have completed their enlistment contracts but still have time remaining on a total 8-year commitment. As many as 6,500 could be recalled to active duty.

Fourth: Stopgap measures by the DoD are working to keep the outposts manned. “Stop loss” and “stop move” orders are in effect. The first bar members of the military from retiring or resigning. The second extends overseas assignment involuntarily – as was the case with the 20,000 troops kept overtime in Iraq.

Fifth: Troop shortages related to the war in Iraq and other deployments are being eased by turning over to civilians jobs now done by members of the armed forces. Rumsfeld hopes to reassign to civilian employees jobs now performed by no less than 300,000 uniformed men and women.

Sixth: Trust that Congress will bail the armed forces out in time. A cadre of both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill are pushing to permanently increase the size of the Armed Forces by at least 30,000.

WolverineBlue
06-26-2004, 03:20 AM
I will gladly give my Sierra Nevada Ale-ridden body up in place of a young boy. Gimme my SOPMOD, a few nades and some ragheads to shoot.

May God bless America. woot woot

Secret Squirrel
06-26-2004, 03:27 AM
Newsmax! Newsmax! *screaming running people* rofl
sorry Trigger

Mr Gently Benevolent
06-26-2004, 04:35 AM
Some of you guys must be getting excited about this already, some of you won't have that difficult decision when you graduate such as what do I do first, take a year off to travel or do I get that top dollar job first.

Mark Sman
06-26-2004, 04:50 AM
This ain't gonna happen. Bank on it.

usa320
06-26-2004, 01:19 PM
It wont happen.

But if it does, ill sure as hell enlist before they draft me. This way i have a choice of what ill be doing... Assuming i even can pass the physical exams.

Mr Gently Benevolent
06-26-2004, 01:22 PM
I think a few of the patriots on this forum will suddenly discover that they have trick knee's and ingrown anal hairs if they do bring out the draft. :lol:

usa320
06-26-2004, 01:29 PM
**** my left knee has been ****ed up for 6 years...nothing new to discover there...

ive got metal in it now.

Black Dots
06-26-2004, 03:23 PM
This ain't gonna happen. Bank on it.

Absolutely. It would be political suicide.

UkrainianAmerican
06-26-2004, 03:45 PM
I will gladly give my Sierra Nevada Ale-ridden body up in place of a young boy. Gimme my SOPMOD, a few nades and some ragheads to shoot.

May God bless America. woot woot
Word up homie!

ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð
06-26-2004, 03:58 PM
I will gladly give my Sierra Nevada Ale-ridden body up in place of a young boy. Gimme my SOPMOD, a few nades and some ragheads to shoot.

May God bless America. woot woot

I'm sure theres people in Iraq / A-stan saying the opposite. The more you see them as "ragheads" instead of humans the longer your "Sierra Neveda Ale-ridden body" will sit in the sandtrap fighting this war.

Deuterium
06-26-2004, 04:53 PM
I will gladly give my Sierra Nevada Ale-ridden body up in place of a young boy. Gimme my SOPMOD, a few nades and some ragheads to shoot.

May God bless America. woot woot

I'm sure theres people in Iraq / A-stan saying the opposite. The more you see them as "ragheads" instead of humans the longer your "Sierra Neveda Ale-ridden body" will sit in the sandtrap fighting this war.

No actually the people in country are calling them Hajis, towelheads or booger eating monkeys, Raghead is way 70s/80s.

Deuterium
06-26-2004, 04:56 PM
And as for the draft this is entirely laughable. As my good friend SGT Hulka aptly stated...

"Son there ain't no draft"


Uhhhh there was one?

Bombtrack
06-26-2004, 05:18 PM
Haha, I just watched that yesterday

vryhpyammoadded
06-26-2004, 05:26 PM
Reinstate the draft?
Recently I was down at the MEPS center to see my niece, nephew and a friend’s son off to the Navy, Army and Air Force. Another niece is off to Annapolis soon too. Anyway, I spoke with a few the recruiters and they told me that they were getting plenty of new recruits. They didn’t seem to be in a pinch at all.
Maybe it’s a regional thing? I didn’t think to inquire about other locations or possible quotas but, who knows…

This draft crap stinks of politics be it shady press, politicians or bureaucrats.

budanski
06-26-2004, 06:40 PM
Dealing With the "Three Year Rule"
Strategypage (http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htiw.htm)

The mass media also tends to take seriously proposals to revive the draft. What the media have missed is what most military historians know; the draft is a recent (19th century) innovation that never really worked. Britain dropped conscription in the early 1960s. The United States followed a decade later, and by the end of the 20th century, most nations that had conscription were planning to get rid of it. Conscription was never a popular policy for the simple reason that if you take all the young men that are eligible, you go bankrupt training them well, or, as it more often the case, sort of half train them. That means a lot more of them get killed if called up in wartime and sent straight off to combat. If you don’t call everyone into service, you create a lot of discontent among those called (and their families), who note the many others who are not called. If the Vietnam war had not happened, the students (and non-students of the same age) would still have been out their protesting anyway. Not about the war, but about the seemingly arbitrary way a few were drafted, and the majority were let go. During the 1960s, with the baby boomer generation coming of age, there were 3-4 times as many young men available for the draft each year, as were needed.

But why are all those young men, and women, still volunteering when there’s obviously a war going on, and they stand a chance of getting hurt? There are several reasons. But perhaps the most important one is that better training, tactics and equipment have made the current war much less lethal than past wars. The potential recruits realize this. Far more young people come back from the war, with exciting war stories, than come back dead or mutilated. The casualty rates in Afghanistan and Iraq have been lower than any war in the past. This makes a difference, because the young men who volunteer have, like all young men before them, a somewhat reckless attitude. They want some adventure, they want to prove themselves. And they’ve seen guys their age doing and not dying in large numbers. There’s also the patriotic angle. To these young folks, there’s a war on and they have a chance to play a part.

The recruiters report that they are getting more resistance from parents, but once the kids turn 18, they don’t need parental permission. Kids that age, being what they are, will see rebelling against their parents wishes as a positive thing.*

What worries the army more is the “three year rule.” Historically, the American public will support a war for three years. If it isn’t over by then, the public mood starts to turn ugly. It’s happened in every American war that went over three years. The war on terror will be three years old in September, 2004. Recruiters are unsure what effect this will have on getting people to volunteer. While most of America’s wars have been fought with volunteers, the two big ones that went the limit without conscription (the American Revolution and the Civil War), ran into manpower problems after the three year limit was hit. But both of those wars had lots more casualties, and defeats, than the war on terror. And even World War II, as popular as it was, saw a growing amount of popular discontent by early 1945. What will happen this time around will be known by 2005, and the recruiters are not looking forward to it.

Kilgor
06-26-2004, 09:26 PM
I second the political suicide.

It aint gonna happen.

usa320
06-26-2004, 09:28 PM
There wont be a draft. Both for political and military reasons. More troops arent the answer. Its giving our current troops all the training, tools and support they need.

DPGLAW
06-26-2004, 10:10 PM
I prefer SandNig&er to raghead.... but cameljocley or raghead will do....lol

el borracho
06-26-2004, 10:29 PM
I think a few of the patriots on this forum will suddenly discover that they have trick knee's and ingrown anal hairs if they do bring out the draft. :lol:

What's sad is that people do that after they joined the military too. During squadron PT, all those with waivers (medical exemptions from exercise) fall out...its easily 1/3 of the squadron. Frickin ridiculous. And most of these people have been on them for months at a time...damn, just get them out of the military already and make room for people who want to be there.

SpazzMunky
06-26-2004, 10:56 PM
I would like to see national gaurd service mandatory, maybe for two years or so. But of course this would only be if the national gaurd was only doing work on American soil, as the national gaurd should.

Fioraon
06-26-2004, 11:25 PM
Everyone is well aware there wont be a Draft in the media. They just want to scare people into thinking that their son will be going over to fight a war that they more then often display as unjust. Its just the media playing games on the masses of ignorance in our country.

Fioraon
06-26-2004, 11:27 PM
I would like to see national gaurd service mandatory, maybe for two years or so. But of course this would only be if the national gaurd was only doing work on American soil, as the national gaurd should.

We can also start a labor service and rename our country the United Socialists of America. Hey, its still USA!