TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- A military draft is getting closer
A military draft is getting closer
Sens. Clinton, Graham call for larger U.S. military
Former political foes strike an alliance
Monday, May 24, 2004 Posted: 8:10 AM EDT (1210 GMT)
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Lindsey Graham agree the
U.S. needs a larger military.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An unlikely pair of Senate allies called for a
larger military Sunday and pledged a thorough investigation of abuse
against Iraqi prisoners in Baghdad.
Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, and Lindsey Graham, R-South
Carolina, are both members of the Senate's Armed Services Committee.
"A number of us have been sounding this alarm. We have to face the fact
we need a larger active-duty military," Clinton told the television show
"Fox News Sunday."
"We cannot continue to stretch our troops, both active-duty, Guard and
Reserve, to the breaking point, which is what we're doing now."
Graham said the United States is "putting too much pressure on the men
and women in uniform."
"We need more of them, sooner rather than later," he said.
The senators acknowledged that an increase in the size of the military
would be an expensive venture...
No military draft is coming unless Korea or Taiwan ignites at the moment. The military is currently meeting recruiting goals.
[[[smoke]]]
The House majority leader Tom Delay has said that a military draft resolution has "no chance" of passing through the House. Also, the Pentagon and current administration is against and will not allow the draft to be reinstated mostly to do with money, quality of soldiers, and social and political backlash.
| quote: |
| Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Lindsey Graham agree the U.S. needs a larger military. |
If it ever passes her daughter better be on the front lines.
I wonder how many people would still be eager for war if there was a chance that they or their children might be drafted and sent back in a coffin.
Hillary mentioning that we need a bigger military does not equate to her support for a draft, but I could be wrong (that is, if she specifically said she supports a draft). I think she's just mentioning the obvious that our military is stretched too thin, and that the current war certainly did not help out this situation much.
The political consensus is that a draft would be extremely unpopular to the public, esp. since a growing number of people do not support this war and question why we went in the first place. Personally I think the most viable means of increasing the number of servicemen and women is to offer more incentives - increase of pay, more tuition reimbursement, better career placement after service, G.I. Bill after times of war, better veterans benefits (or at least protect the benefits from being cut), and so forth. I dunno, just a few thoughts.
| quote: |
| There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately. $28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004. The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft. Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services. Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era. College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year. Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a shelter and includes women in the draft. The public has a right to air their opinions about such an important decision. Please send this on to all the friends, parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and cousins that you know. Let your children know too -- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change! Please also contact your representatives to ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills -- and contact newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by smokeape No military draft is coming unless Korea or Taiwan ignites at the moment. The military is currently meeting recruiting goals. [[[smoke]]] |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Galapidate http://www.congress.org/congressorg...=ua_congressorg |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by abdul or china |
Bet you Chelsea Clinton isn't going to get drafted. And if she does she won't see a frontline.
mmmm thats one way to keep immigration down
(posted that a bit late at night)
"the sky is falling, the sky is falling!"
no it isn't.
A draft won't happen. Over the last two years recruiting efforts were largely downsized, resigning bonuses were eliminated, and people were voluntarily let go out of their military obligations early in an attempt to downsize the military.
Now Hilary Clinton and others are calling for a larger military? I believe we need it but i don't appreciate when my benefits are taken away.
There won't be a draft. The only thing that will happen is stepped-up recruiting, and return of benefits. What most don't know is the amazing range of benefits offered to our GIs now. On top of the Montgomery GI Bill, you have 100% tuition assistance - which means while on active duty, the military pays for 100% of your college tuition - GI Bill isn't even necessary anymore. On top of that you receive money for food every month, and money to pay rent every month ON TOP of your base pay. When deployed you get extra pay like hazard pay, incentive pay, and family separation pay. Yeah, it sucks to be in the desert, but when you're making around 3~4 G's a month doing it, it ain't so bad.
Another benefit - resigning bonus. After your first four year commitment is over, you have the option to re-enlist. If you have a high-demand career field (such as a computer-related job), your resigning bonus can be as high as $60,000. My supervisor just re-enlisted, got $30,000 up front (cash), and gets the remaining $30,000 broken up each year for the remainder of his new re-enlistment.
Yep, your tax dollars at work.
I'm writing this from my new home, with two brand new cars parked in my garage as a G.I. Do i live with my parents? NO. I live over 2000 miles away from my parents. Would i have all this if i wasn't in the service? Probably not. So what the f@ck is my point anyway? That the military is great - everyone is afraid of what it is due to the images you see on iraqi tv.... do you realize that only 10% of the entire military has ever even been to the desert? If for some reason a draft ever happened, i think if anything it would open some eyes as to the opportunities that are available to you in todays armed services.
Cheers
-ABT-
my first post, i usually just read because i like that more, but i know this one for a fact.
I am in the us military, air force to be exact. As of right now, the military has to many people according to congress, and we are down sizing, that's right, we are kicking people out (you can't get fired in the military) because we have 32,000 more airman then congress says we can have. So before ANY draft could take place, congress would have to authorize more troops, at which point we would stop firing people. also, recent years have seen an upswing of volunteers into the military because of 911 and the military has been more selective about who it chooses.
so before all you pansy's wet your pants about a draft, chill out, IT AIN'T HAPPENING!
oh well, have a good day all.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by 45kicks my first post, i usually just read because i like that more, but i know this one for a fact. I am in the us military, air force to be exact. As of right now, the military has to many people according to congress, and we are down sizing, that's right, we are kicking people out (you can't get fired in the military) because we have 32,000 more airman then congress says we can have. So before ANY draft could take place, congress would have to authorize more troops, at which point we would stop firing people. also, recent years have seen an upswing of volunteers into the military because of 911 and the military has been more selective about who it chooses. so before all you pansy's wet your pants about a draft, chill out, IT AIN'T HAPPENING! oh well, have a good day all. |
I also do not think a draft will be comin' back anytime soon, unless a grave situation arises like a strike from N. Korea. A draft would be incredibly unpopular, not just with the public who disagrees with our contentions for this current war, but with Congress as well.
What's more, with the "stop-loss" program taking effect, why would we need a draft? We can just keep soldiers in the military indefinitely!:
| quote: |
| Army Plan Aims to Keep Soldiers on Duty 13 minutes ago By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Thousands of soldiers who had expected to retire or otherwise leave the military will be required to stay if their units are ordered to Iraq (news - web sites) or Afghanistan (news - web sites). The announcement Wednesday, an expansion of a program called "stop-loss," affects units that are 90 days or less from deploying, said Lt. Gen. Frank L. "Buster" Hagenbeck, the Army's deputy chief of staff for personnel. Commanders can make exceptions for soldiers with special circumstances. Otherwise, soldiers won't be able to leave the service or transfer from their units until they return to their home bases after their deployments end. The Army is struggling to find fresh units to continue the occupation of Iraq. Almost every combat unit has faced or will face duty there or in Afghanistan, and increased violence has forced the deployment of an additional 20,000 troops to the Iraq region, straining units even further. The move allows the Army to keep units together as they deploy, Hagenbeck said. Units with new recruits or recently transferred soldiers would not perform as well because the troops would not have had time to work together. "The rationale is to have cohesive, trained units going to war together," Hagenbeck said. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, every Army unit ordered to Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and nearby countries has faced a similar rule, although it has been applied in a piecemeal fashion. Army officials portrayed Wednesday's announcement as an administrative change that would serve as a catchall for every unit that deploys to those combat areas in the future. Initially, the expanded order will affect several units about to go to Iraq: most of the 2nd Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division, from Fort Drum, N.Y.; the 265th Infantry Brigade of the Louisiana National Guard; the 116th Armored Brigade of the Idaho National Guard; the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment of the Tennessee National Guard, and the 42nd Infantry Division's headquarters staff, from the New York National Guard. The 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division, a South Korea (news - web sites)-based unit, is expected to deploy later this summer and will be subject to the expanded stop-loss program as well, officials said. There has been criticism of the program as contrary to the concept of an all-volunteer military force. Soldiers planning to retire and get on with their lives now face more months away from their families and homes. In an opinion piece in Wednesday's New York Times, Andrew Exum, a former Army captain who served under Hagenbeck in the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan, called the treatment "shameful." "Many, if not most, of the soldiers in this latest Iraq-bound wave are already veterans of several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan," he wrote. "They have honorably completed their active duty obligations. But like draftees, they have been conscripted to meet the additional needs in Iraq." Hagenbeck said the stop-loss move is necessary only because the Army is also undergoing a major reorganization that requires some units to be taken off-line while they are restructured. Hagenbeck had no numbers on how many soldiers would be affected. The stop-loss expansion is indefinite, officials said. Typical turnover requires an average division to replace about a quarter of its strength � perhaps 4,000 soldiers � over an 18-month period, an Army spokeswoman said. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...raq_us_military |
actually the stop-loss was lifted a couple of months ago, much to many a troops' relief. Like i said before, recently they've been trying to slim down the military - makes no sense if a draft is imminent.
Not to mention, aren't drafts illegal now? I believe Congress passed a bill after Vietnam that makes such a move illegal.
-ABT-
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ABTsportsline actually the stop-loss was lifted a couple of months ago, much to many a troops' relief. Like i said before, recently they've been trying to slim down the military - makes no sense if a draft is imminent. Not to mention, aren't drafts illegal now? I believe Congress passed a bill after Vietnam that makes such a move illegal. -ABT- |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ABTsportsline Not to mention, aren't drafts illegal now? I believe Congress passed a bill after Vietnam that makes such a move illegal. -ABT- |
I doubt a draft would be instated even if N. Korea sparked up. We have some 2.4 million active duty troops plus an additional 10 millino or so in the reserves. Assuming that the goal is not an occupation of N. Korea, destroying the military capabilities of N. Korea should not be that man-power intensive. China however would be a different story.
Agree, Korea is smaller and slaughter of enemy troops would be lower than China. No one on earth can take on the US in open warfare.
My father is in and out of the Pentagon so I asked him to ask a Pentagon official about the draft. This is an excerpt from the memo he recieved 2 days ago:
| quote: |
| I don't think we'll end up with a draft. This massive professional force is the result of no draft -- everyone is well trained and wants to be there. A draft would have to consider women -- another stumbling block. An overall stop-loss and continual service in theater would certainly come first. Right now the Services are trying to maintain a rotation in theater -- impossible under the circumstances. That perception of a promised rotation is causing friction with particularly the troops' families. I don't think there were any promises about rotations, but it was sure implied -- sort of like medical care for life. |
Continual stop loss to keep people in the military beyond their contractual obligations is one way to curb a draft. Too much of a good thing? might sour recruiting efforts down the road though.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.