A prescription for conscription (Cynthia Tucker Alert)

The Atlanta Jounal Constitution ^ | 1 October 2004 | Cynthia Tucker

[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.

[Sarajevo]

It takes a special man to make the special operations levels:

This is only true if quality is stressed over quantity. Those who stress quantity will always give up quality to attain their goals

[dahvid]

I might hazard a guess, but what is the real reason?

1) I guess it might be to make the Republican administration look bad?
2) To weaken and demoralize our troops and population?
3) To impose "martial law" upon the population, furthering the alleged Marxist, etc, ideology of some left wingers? (This is a little far-out, but I'm just guessing here).

Ok so I guessed, probably incorrectly, so what's the real reason that the Democrats wrote and sponsored those bills? Inquiring minds want to know.

[savedbygrace]

The logical conclusion of all the FACTS is that President Bush doesn't have "imperial ambitions".

Ms Tucker, I challenge you to prove your wild, unsubstantiated claim. Put up or shut up.

[Roccus]

Can you say "straw man?"

[where's_the_Outrage?]

There are men that don't know they can qualify in the special ops field until they have too. Tillman was a real man, and qualified to reach all levels. But until 911, there was no requirement.

I personnally believe all able boldiled males should spend 2 years in the military. Some will discovery they're missing their calling.

[hippy hate me]

>>Kerry's calling for more troops in Iraq...

Geez. During the debate he said he would start to pull them out of Iraq, didn't he? As for this rediculous article above... http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_numbers_041404,00.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl

[dahvid]

1) Perhaps Kerry did say that he would withdraw troops from Iraq. However, he is inconsistent. Please reference this link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133453,00.html
where during the end of the debate Kerry said otherwise.

2) The military.com article you referenced is convincing. Assuming that the article is correct that Americans are beating the door down to go to join the military, then there are some questions raised:

A) Why have the Democrats sponsored the above mentioned draft bills?
B) Why do recent news articles report that soldiers are slow to report back to active duty, and that they are being forced to overstay their commitment in the military?

3) If you are correct that the military is flush with recruits and turning them away, then what of the rumors mentioned above in this post where college students are being told that Bush will institute a draft? If your charge is correct, then you have disproved the rumor that Bush is seeking a draft.

[hippy hate me]

Speaking of Kerry's inconsistencies, I've been going through the debate transcript and have found the following flip-flop quotes so far:

"He also said Saddam Hussein would have been stronger. That is just factually incorrect. Two-thirds of the country was a no-fly zone when we started this war. We would have had sanctions. We would have had the U.N. inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening."

--I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a threat.
-- He needed to be disarmed.

--I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq.

--I have a plan for Iraq. I believe we can be successful. I'm not talking about leaving.

--We can do a better job of training the Iraqi forces to defend themselves.

--And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there with a minimal amount you need for training and logistics

I'll have to go through it more thoroughly tomorrow... As for the whole draft thing...scare tactics, I think. It's ironic how Republicans are the ones being accused of this practice. Ask anyone who has tried joining the military recently how difficult it really is to get in. Never mind the physical prerequisites, old parking tickets raise eyebrows in the recruiting office.

They want quality, not quantity. This might help explain some of the effort to hold on to the already trained & experienced, I'm not sure. Of course, after being away from family and convienience for 7 months it is hard to say good-bye to it all again.

[an amused spectator]

That said, however, what is untrue in Tucker's column??

Why would you take seriously anything said by the mentally deranged Cynthia "I'm A Lying Racist F*cker" Tucker?

[dahvid]

"It's ironic how Republicans are the ones being accused of this practice."

It seems more than ironic, more like calculated, knowing how easily people can be tricked. For example, I was listening to some of my friends bashing Bush about the debate. They were laughing and making fun of Bush, when one of them in mid chuckle admitted that he "didn't watch the debate, only heard a little from people". The point is that emotions and beliefs can be easily manipulated. This is why the media is so powerful, it masterfully uses "mob psychology" to influence opinions and votes. This is being used in our schools to indoctrinate our youth. Reference:

http://www.protestwarrior.com/
http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org
http://www.frontpagemag.com/

In other words it doesn't matter if you blatantly lie to the public because because it is only human nature that many people will believe whatever told, stubbornly adhere to their party line either consciously or subconsciously, or even knowingly spread lies to get votes, etc. This seems to be the Democratic method. The use of imagery rather than substance, like a Hollywood movie the actors are not real but people believe they are in a subconscious way. The use of imagery is very powerful but won't work against people who can reason. Naturally the Republicans use the same principles, because appearance does count, but the difference is one of scruples. The Democrats seem to have zero scruples, lying, flipflop, etc, just to sway public opinion for votes. The CBS 60 minutes scandal is just one example. If you are interested here are some media bias websites that document some of this:

http://www.honestreporting.com/
http://www.camera.org/

Finally, Kerry is truly scary. Listening to some of his points during the debate such as giving nuclear material to Iran, sending US troops wherever, such a Sudan, under the auspices of a world court, and all the rest. Combined with his apparently poor relationship with the military, his affinity for communism or socialism, his far-left agenda, if he is elected I just want to get the hell out of here because the terrorists will have won a decisive victory.

Good luck, hope you don't have to say bye to it all again.

[JOE43270]

Why are they suppressing them? I know because they these communists want to destroy America from the inside out. I for one and the rest of the FREEPERS will go down keeping that from happening. These Communists led by Hanoi john and Hitlery want to raise our children in a manner that will change America. They will undermine Mom, Dad, Grandma, and Grandpa and turn America into Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia. The Democrats put these Bills in not the Republicans.

[dahvid]

One more thing to add to my last reply (I always remember something just after positing).

We were discussing the paradox of why the democrats are pushing for draft legislation while your military.com article states that there is an abundance of recruits.

Other than using scare tactics about the draft to influence votes, there could be a difference in strategic philosophy.(Please note that I am only guessing here not saying that I know). perhaps there is a difference in how the Democrats would prosecute a military campaign. While Bush is for small, mobile, elite units, perhaps Kerry favors a different military strategy more along the lines of Vietnam or WWII. Sometimes I wonder if Kerry is truly pro USA.

[hippy hate me]

>>perhaps there is a difference in how the Democrats would prosecute a military campaign.

I think it could be more about military politics and funding. Kerry mentioned he wants to add two active duty divisions and double the number of special forces. Now this second claim is something to look deeper into in so far as we're concerned about increasing numbers of recruits.

Adding two divisions or about 25,000 soldiers is one thing, but to double the number of special forces is a big task. First off, you have to have been in the service for a certain length of time before you can even apply for the training opportunity. Second, a very small % who do go through the training pass it.

So, in order to double the number of special force soldiers you would have to either: 1)multiply the number of applicants by 10 or 20, maybe more. I don't know the exact numbers, or 2) relax the standards of passing. Or both.

The second option is BAD and will be met with a lot of resistance if attempted. The first option requires injecting more soldiers into the mix to generate enough SF training graduates to reach the double mark. Where are all of these soldiers going to come from?

With that said, Kerry has been know to support the draft in the past.

The biggest concern I have here about the Dems is how it never seems to add up to reason. I'd like to believe they're just unorganized and sloppy, but sometimes I can't help to think there is a hidden agenda. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but it begs for recognition.

[dahvid]

" I think it could be more about military politics and funding."

Thanks for the interesting insights. I don't know where Kerry will get the SF grade applicants either. One can only conjecture.

"I'd like to believe they're just unorganized and sloppy, but sometimes I can't help to think there is a hidden agenda. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but it begs for recognition."

I'm definitely not for conspiracy theories either. The inscrutable Democratic agenda obviously involves politics and funding. Some Democrats remain stubborn against reason. Perhaps it is "peer pressure" exerted by the entertainment industry, or they are brain-washed by the constant stream of misinformation propogated by the mainstream media, or in school. I've read that George Soros among others is a multi-billionaire that funds the left and there are many articles about how the left-wing colludes with the terrorists, communists, etc. The reason given is that are they are Marxists that want to destroy our society in favor of their Utopian socialist society, and anything is better than capitalism in their view. I'm not sure whether or not to believe the articles claiming that Kerry conspired with communists or that the American communist party supports him.

If interested you can check www.frontpage.com for many articles about the subject of the left's agenda.

[dahvid]

As usual, I realized something else just after posting.

Another reason why some Democrats seem so stubborn against reason is probably special interests. For example, gays, feminists, and others who benefit from the Democratic cultural domestic agenda might support Kerry come hell or high water. Certainly there are groups that support the Republicans because of personal interests as well. There was a story a while back about how gays marching in support of a palestinian militant rally were met with hostility. It just goes to show how naive some people are.

[hippy hate me]

Thanks for the link.

There has been a lot of research done right here at FR on the left's agenda. Check this out.

[dahvid]

That's what I'm talking about. Thanks for the link.