Defense Secretary Taken To Task For Comment About Vietnam-era Draftees

Associated Press / SFGate

[RCW2001]

ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
Tuesday, January 21, 2003
©2003 Associated Press

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/01/21/national1923EST0753.DTL

(01-21) 16:23 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld came under fire Tuesday for saying Vietnam-era draftees added "no value, no advantage" to the U.S. military because they served for such short periods.

In a letter to Rumsfeld, three Democrats in Congress expressed outrage at his comments and urged an apology.

The letter signed by Sens. Tom Daschle of South Dakota and John Kerry of Massachusetts and Rep. Lane Evans of Illinois argued that Rumsfeld's remarks at a Jan. 7 Pentagon news conference were offensive to veterans.

"We are shocked, frankly, that you were apparently willing to dismiss the value of the service of millions of Americans, tens of thousands of whom gave their lives for their country in World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam," they wrote.

Rumsfeld made his comments in response to a reporter's question about an effort by some in Congress to reinstitute the draft. Rumsfeld said he saw no need for a draft because the all-volunteer system works better.

"If you think back to when we had the draft, people were brought in, they were paid some fraction of what they could make in the civilian manpower market because they were without choices," Rumsfeld said.

"Big categories were exempted -- people that were in college, people that were teaching, people that were married. It varied from time to time, but there were all kinds of exemptions. And what was left was sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months, and then went out, adding no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services over any sustained period of time, because the churning that took place, it took enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone."

The letter to Rumsfeld said he had distorted the historical record.

"It is not only inaccurate, but also deeply offensive, to describe the service of these men who answered the call of their country as without value," they wrote. "A more careful look at the record indicates that America's draftees played a crucial role in defense of liberty and democracy around the globe."

Pentagon officials on Tuesday evening said they were preparing a written statement in response to the letter.

The letter said that about one of every three Americans killed in combat in Vietnam was a draftee, approximately 20,000 draftees in all. "Many more draftees came home with severe physical and emotional scars," they added. "Those who served in Korea and the two world wars can also attest to the value added by draftees."

The Pentagon initially responded to a Washington Post report on Rumsfeld's remarks by saying the newspaper had misconstrued his meaning. Rumsfeld's chief spokeswoman, Victoria Clarke, wrote in a letter to the Post published Monday that Rumsfeld's point was that "conscription as a system suffers by comparison with the all-volunteer force."

©2003 Associated Press  

[WOSG]

Certainly draftees sacrificed their lives, were wounded, scarred and forever changed. I don't believe for a second Rumsfeld is saying they weren't valued.

Rumsfeld has run corporations. he knows the difference between human resource systems that work and those that dont work. the draft system has many disadvantages vis a vis a volunteer system, from the perspective of total organization effectiveness.

[JoeSixPack1]

Jeez, they just keep piling on. Rumsfeld, it seems, was referring to longevity of the forces and not the individuals.

They succeeded with Lott, so now it's never ending.

Never feed a stray cat.

[meenie]

It is amazing that the world's greatest war (WW II)was won by 90% draftees and now they are worthless. It's nice that we now know that the all volunteer army is so much better. Rumsfeld didn't fight with the dog-faces. He might appreciate the finer arts of sacrifice if he had. Draftees furnished most of the blood in Korea also. He has lost my support if he does not appreciate the sacrifices civiliasn soldiers have contributed.

[CedarDave]

Don't get drawn in by the RAT tactics of divide and conquer. Go to the link where Rumsfeld gives his response. He might have been clearer in his remarks, but it looks like the Rats and their press toadies are teaming up to try to make it a lot worse than it is. They'll take any opportunity to tear decent people up.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

NEVER FORGET

...Immediately after his Victory at the Battle of IA DRANG-1965 then Lt. Col. HAL G. MOORE (Portrayed by MEL GIBSON in .."WE WERE SOLDIERS"..) had the very same negative appraisal of the Military Draft and not being able to hold on to some of his very best and most experienced SkyTroopers when going over to Vietnam, as now Secretary of Defense DONALD RUMSFELD.

NEVER FORGET

[El Gato]

Rummy is an a--hole if he said that.

He didn't, at least in context it's clear that he didn't mean what the Dashole pretends he meant. I've only got one nerve left, and Dashole is reallygetting on it.

[snippy_about_it]

Well said.

[snippy_about_it]

Please see post 20. Here is part of Rumsfeld's statement:

"Again, my statement was not eloquent. A few columnists and others, though, have suggested that those words were intended to mean that draftees added no value to the military. That is not true. I did not say they added no value while they were serving. They added great value. I was commenting on the loss of that value when they left the service. I certainly had no intention of saying what has been reported, or of leaving that impression. Hundreds of thousands of military draftees served over years with great distinction and valor - many being wounded and still others killed."

[RobbyS]

I think he was talking about Vietnam, the draft has obvious weaknesses.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

It is amazing that the world's greatest war (WW II)was won by 90% draftees and now they are worthless.

Not quite. 67 percent of those who served during WWII were draftees, not 90 percent. Also, the draft age had to be lowered during WWII to 18 because not enough men aged 21-34 volunteered. If you carefully read Rumsfelds' remarks, he is speaking of Vietnam-era draftees. Those men had two year active duty obligations while enlistees had three or four year active duty obligations.

[Check6]

The Secretary certainly put his foot into his mouth. Expect more of these gaffes as the administration gives every reason NOT to have a draft, when there is only one real reason: we are the World Policeman and we must be up to the job. When Johnnie-My-Daddy-Is-A-Congresscritter or Frankie-My-Daddy-Is-A CEO gets his orders to ship out, resistance would come from a much higher level than tolerable.

We've passed the point where we can "walk softly and carry a big stick". Those days are gone. The future is turmoil generalized, not turmoil isolated, and we need a mercenery army of volunteers for dispersal to just about everywhere. Since it is their chosen profession, they will not balk. Draftees would be a very large problem, for they would see the bottom line thusly: I'm hanging out here waiting to get popped to make the world secure for Big American Multinational Corporations. I don't think I like that.

There is one other major problem with our new "multicultural nation" and the draft: none of the draftees will see their nation-family as their nation or family. What's to defend? It has all been given away already.

 

 

[Happy2BMe]

Here is your typical Democratic draftee of 'Nam.

You sure man? The body is still in the car?!

BTW: Rumsfeld should retract, just on principle - but not to give in to the DemoHoes.

[Happy2BMe]

NEVER FORGET

[PhiKapMom]

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE STATEMENT ON THE DRAFT (FACTS -- not Media Spin that has been written)
Department of Defense Press Release ^ | 21 January 2003 | SecDef Donald Rumsfeld


Posted on 01/21/2003 8:03 PM CST by PhiKapMom


NEWS RELEASE from the United States Department of Defense


No. 029-03
(703)697-5131(media)
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 21, 2003
(703)428-0711(public/industry)


SECRETARY OF DEFENSE STATEMENT ON THE DRAFT


During a recent press briefing at the Pentagon, a reporter asked my views on the old military draft system. Although not eloquently stated, I responded to the question in part as follows:


"If you think back to when we had the draft, people were brought in, they were paid some fraction of what they could make in the civilian manpower market, because they were without choices. Big categories [of people] were exempted-people that were in college, people that were teaching, people that were married . . . And what was left [those who were not exempted] were sucked into the intake, trained for a period of months and then went out, adding no value, no advantage really, to the United States Armed Services over any sustained period of time, because (of) the churning that took place - it took an enormous amount of effort in terms of training and then they were gone."

Again, my statement was not eloquent. A few columnists and others, though, have suggested that those words were intended to mean that draftees added no value to the military. That is not true. I did not say they added no value while they were serving. They added great value. I was commenting on the loss of that value when they left the service. I certainly had no intention of saying what has been reported, or of leaving that impression. Hundreds of thousands of military draftees served over years with great distinction and valor - many being wounded and still others killed.


The last thing I would want to do would be to disparage the service of those draftees. I always have had the highest respect for their service, and I offer my full apology to any veteran who misinterpreted my remarks when I said them, or who may have read any of the articles or columns that have attempted to take my words and suggest they were disparaging.

The intent of my comments was to reflect a view I have held for some time: that we should lengthen tours of duty and careers for our all-volunteer forces, so that these highly trained men and women in uniform can serve in specific assignments longer, and also not be forced to leave the service when they are at the peak of their skills and knowledge.

It is painful for anyone, and certainly a public servant whose words are carried far and wide, to have a comment so unfortunately misinterpreted.


It is particularly troubling for me that there are truly outstanding men and women in uniform or their families -- past and present -- who may believe that the Secretary of Defense would say or mean what some have written. I did not. I would not.


I hope this deeply felt statement reaches those who have served those who are serving, and their families.

[PhiKapMom]

See Post #34 for the real truth about what SecDef Rumsfeld said!

[John Lenin]

The only reason the RATS are calling for a draft is to feed into the anti-war movement. They haven't changed their tactics in almost 50 years now and it is really wearing thin.

[Happy2BMe]

"They haven't changed their tactics in almost 50 years now and it is really wearing thin."

That is the truth and nothing but the truth!

[Kevin Curry]

Troll.

[CyberAnt]

Yeah, right ... and these are the same people who threw out military votes in order to get Gore elected!!

[Happy2BMe]

"Yeah, right ... and these are the same people who threw out military votes in order to get Gore elected!!"

So glad you brought that up!

Disqualification of ballots by Democrats Was 'systematic'

Matt Drudge - DEMOCRAT MEMO ON HOW TO DISQUALIFY MILITARY VOTES

Gore's Five-Page Military Vote-Stealing Memo

How Gore Cheated American Troops Serving Overseas

The list goes on forever....

(And so does our memory!)