Posted on 10/02/2004 5:38:37 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
The Bush administration is trying to quash a rumor that keeps cropping up in cyberspace. For several months now, e-mails from an unknown source have warned that President Bush plans to reinstitute the draft if he wins a second term.
The rumor persists despite repeated denials from top-level administration figures. In Thursday's debate, Bush declared that the U.S. military will remain an all-volunteer force.
Recently, Secretary of State Colin Powell told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that "President Bush has no plans for a draft, nor is a draft needed." And Congress would just as soon debate the revival of Prohibition, because a new draft is one of the few things that would be less popular than a new ban on booze.
So why does the speculation about a draft have so much currency? Perhaps it's because Bush can't support his imperial ambitions without more soldiers — a lot more.
Bills in the House and the Senate would revive conscription (though they lie dormant). And both John Kerry and Ralph Nader have done their share to fuel the rumor. Nader, especially, has tried for months to link Bush to a secret draft proposal. But none of that fully explains the widespread anxiety.
Fear of conscription continues to float just below the surface because so many voters understand somewhere in the backs of their minds that Bush's military plans simply don't add up.
A Pentagon advisory board recently issued a report stating the patently obvious: The U.S. military won't have enough troops in coming years to meet its continuing war and peacekeeping obligations. And respected military analyst Michael O'Hanlon has written, "The Army — and perhaps the Marine Corps, as well . . . needs an immediate increase in active-duty troop levels."
It is not possible to keep nearly 140,000 troops in Iraq — as the president's oft-stated "resolve" dictates — while also continuing missions in the Balkans, following through on long-term commitments in Europe and confronting new threats in North Korea and Iran. (Some analysts have argued that the United States needs to add more troops to Iraq to provide the security needed for elections there.)
Even if Bush plans to rely on diplomacy with North Korea and Iran, diplomacy needs the credible threat of military action. At the moment, the United States cannot mount that credible threat.
Already, the Bush administration's ad-hoc strategy — if it can be called a strategy — is colliding with itself. Having failed to persuade allies to send more of their troops to Iraq, the Pentagon has instituted what Kerry calls a "back-door draft" — "stop-loss" orders prohibit retirements or transfers of active-duty troops. In addition, National Guard and Reserve troops have been forced to accept unusually long tours.
But that has sapped morale and threatened recruitment. The National Guard — whose "weekend warriors" have been ground down by lengthy overseas tours — doesn't expect to hit its recruiting target this year. It would be the first time in a decade that the Guard didn't make its goal.
So a group of senior military personnel officers has begun to call for shorter tours. "All the Army leadership agrees that 12 months is too long," Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, told The New York Times. But they also agree the Pentagon may need to keep nearly 140,000 troops in Iraq through 2007. There is no way to accomplish both goals — keeping boots on the ground and shortening tours of duty.
Bush and his aides continue to engage in a denial that borders on the pathological: The United States is winning the war on terror; everything is going swimmingly in Iraq; and, of course, the military doesn't need any more troops. Even more amazing, they've been able to get away with this strange cognitive dissonance. Bush's poll ratings go up even as Iraq melts down.
But I have the feeling that more and more voters are getting the sense that something just doesn't add up. They might not want to think about it. If nothing else, Bush offers a sense of certainty in an uncertain world. But you've got to tamp down a lot of doubts to hang onto it.
That's why those e-mails about the draft won't go away.
Well, actually, she "does" mention them. She just fails to point out that they are sponsored and cosponsored solely by Democrats.
Well Cynthia, stupid bitch, Kerry's advocating a massive expansion of the Army and SpecOps. Who is more likely to reinstate the draft?
She isn't worried about this, though, is she:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1233465/posts
See my post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1233047/posts
Kerry said towards the end of the debate:
"As president, I will expand our Army by 40,000 troops so that we have more soldiers to find and fight the enemy. I will double our Army Special Forces capacity. And we will accelerate the development and deployment of new technologies to track down and bring down terrorists."
I also recall Kerry saying that he would deploy troops to Africa, and Bush countered that he is working the African National Congress to provide troops instead of Americans.
Would Kerry require a draft to expand the military to this extent?
Reference this link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133453,00.html
Notice that there is no mention of the fact that those bills are both written and exclusively supported by DEMOCRATS!
One good reason for the anxiety is "draft scare" articles in college newspapers (the UMASS Daily Collegian had one last week), and a mass mailing effort by the Democrats to target college email addresses alleging that the President wants a draft.
Fear of conscription continues to float just below the surface because so many voters understand somewhere in the backs of their minds that Bush's military plans simply don't add up.
Gee, I wonder where that idea came from?
A Pentagon advisory board recently issued a report stating the patently obvious: The U.S. military won't have enough troops in coming years to meet its continuing war and peacekeeping obligations. And respected military analyst Michael O'Hanlon has written, "The Army — and perhaps the Marine Corps, as well . . . needs an immediate increase in active-duty troop levels."
Didn't I just read that all the armed services have met their recruitment goals? I thinkt the National Guard was the exception.
It is not possible to keep nearly 140,000 troops in Iraq — as the president's oft-stated "resolve" dictates — while also continuing missions in the Balkans, following through on long-term commitments in Europe and confronting new threats in North Korea and Iran. (Some analysts have argued that the United States needs to add more troops to Iraq to provide the security needed for elections there.)
As we all know, the "long term commitments" in Europe are being dismantled by the President, freeing up soldiers for real duty, the Euroweenies can handle the Balkans, since they have no investment in Iraq (add the Sudan to that list too!), and North Korea and Iran are being handled diplomatically, not militarily.
It is Kerry who wants to put 40,000 more soldiers in Iraq NOW, and the predictable attrition rate increases from the armed services in the event of a Kerry win in November make a draft inevitable.
Americans concerned about a draft ought to worry that Kerry might win!!
Charles Rangle, Jim McDermott, John Conyers, Jim Moron, and Fritz Hollings are of what party? The JACKASS party!
By its very nature, SpecOps CANNOT be made up of conscripts. Only a highly motivated volunteer would stick with the rigorous training and the high-risk assignments once put in the field.
An unwilling conscript would gravely compromise the mission by a less than diligent attention to tasks. This is not to say, that once conscripted, some few of the draftees could have a flush of patriotism and bravery, and might go on to be some really outstanding SpecOps commandos. Maybe right up there with flying pigs. Which in other words, would be highly improbable.
Should Kerry somehow manage to gain the Presidency, it is a certainty that the draft, in the form of "national service", would be instituted. Most of the inductees would be put in VISTA (which would be something of a mockery of "Volunteers") or some version of the Peace Corps, with only a few unfortunates actually being put in uniform. This small corps of uniformed draftees may be counted upon to provide all the griping and protests needed to reinvigorate the "anti-war" peaceniks.
hahahhahhahahahahha
A_R
not to mention that draft that will be needed to replace all the military men and women who resign in the unlikely event of a Kerry presidency...
"For several months now, e-mails from an unknown source have warned that President Bush plans to reinstitute the draft if he wins a second term."
Unknown, my rosy red irish arse! How about the dems, sweety pie?
You're right -- Kerry's calling for more troops in Iraq (though he didn't mention it on Thurs night unless I missed it). That said, however, what is untrue in Tucker's column?? She says that the reason a lot of people worry about the draft is because there aren't enough soldiers and marines to fill the ranks in Iraq, along with our other current commitments, and also provide a force to back up "diplomacy" against Iran and North Korea (and elsewhere). Are you saying we DO have enough troops now? If you're not saying that, what exactly in her column do you disagree with?
This is a tactic that is the cornerstone of the liberal intelligensia - known as convenient ommission. They bitch about an issue that's very existence is forwarded by their own team players legislation.
Yes it is a human trait to highlight facts that support one's argument while ignoring those that delineate. Pubbies (and Freepers) are guilty of such but the sheer volume of examples from the left vs. the right would put the progressive tax rate scheme to shame.
It's more than that. A highly motivated volunteer can still be found wanting. It takes special men to be special forces. I tried, but didn't measure up, much to my shame.
Just because you volunteer doesn't mean you have what it takes.
Professional REMF here. Wish I was in Tillman's league.
A form of this type of "volunteering" has already been attempted. In the 1980's, there was a program where enlistees were being recruited for the 18 series (Special Forces) of military occupational specialties before they had attended basic training. Essentially, they were recruited off the street. The vast majority of these personnel were failures, even those who made it to the teams. In the 1990's, a form of this same type of recruiting was attempted where soldiers who were due to be demobilized due to the drawdown were offered 18 series training(MOS 18X). Again, very few were motivated enough to make it through the demanding training regimens. Those who did were mostly detractors to mission accomplishment. The best troops were those who were career soldiers with at least one tour in the regular army to learn their way around the system. I wholeheartedly agree that Special Operations troops CANNOT be conscripted without compromising quality, but there are those in political positions who unfortunately think otherwise
S 89 Bill sponsored by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC) in early 2003, read once, no further action. HR 163 sponsored by Charles Rangel (D- NY 15th Dist.) and cosponsored by: John Conyers (D-Mich. 14th Dist.), Jim McDermott (D-WA 17th Dist.), Neil Abercrombie (D-HI 1st Dist.), Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA 13th Dist), John Lewis, (D-GA 5th Dist.), Corinne Brown (D-FL 3rd Dist.), William Lacy Clay (D-MO 1st Dist.), James P. Moran (D-VA 8th Dist.), Sheila Jackson (D-TX 18th Dist.), Eleanor H. Norton (D-DC), Nydia M. Belazquez (D-NY 12th Dist.), Alcee Hastings (D-FL 23rd Dist.)HR was read the same day as S 89, then once again. It has been referred to two subcommittees and no further action has been taken since early 2003.
Anyone like to hazard a guess as to WHY they wrote and sponsored these bills? I'll give you two guesses and the first one doesn't count.
It takes a special man to make the special operations levels:
82nd
Rangers
Special Forces
SEALS
DELTA
Some conscripts can find themselves as real men, others will continue as girly men.
This woman is so silly. The only one's who are talking about a draft are the democrats themselves. Any lie they can throw out there, they will. No use trying to email this knee padder.
Thank you. I can't believe this woman is so stupid.
This entire draft issue (and bill in Congress) is a creation of the Dems trying to undermine support for the war in Iraq.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.