SECRETARY OF DEFENSE STATEMENT ON THE DRAFT

Dept of Defense ^ | 1/21/03 | Rumsfeld

[Hipixs]

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.

[Hipixs]

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Rumsfeld, click below:
	click here >>>	Rumsfeld	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[Support Free Republic]

Interesting.

[Support Free Republic]

---

Look into my eyes! You Vill not Succeed !
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[mystery-ak]

I stand behind Rummy...bump

[SunStar]

UP YOURS TOM DASCHLE AND JOHN KERRY!

[ConservativeMan55]

I second that! Damn those bastards Kerry and Kennedy!

[Bob]

Interesting

What is with you and this "Interesting" bit? You seem to be posting it on just about every thread I've seen today.

[SwinneySwitch]

Demonrats offend me DAILY and have for YEARS!

[Doctor Raoul]

It's obvious that Rumsfeld was talking about the system and not the people in the system. "Churning" mean turnover in personnel, which a systemicproblem with a draft fed military. It has no negative conotation towards those swept up by it.

The fuss being made over this is just another example of the Democrats' "Party uber Country" nature. Nothing is off limits, not even the nation safety, if they feel they can reap some votes.

[El Gato]

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

At first blush this would seem to conflict with the newly announced policy of allowing for optional shorter enlistments. However, those shorter enlistments carry with them an obligation in the selected reserve, which could be either in the normal "unit" reserves or as individual reservists (IMAs) attached or assigned to active (or reserve) units. It would entail 15 months active duty AFTER basic training, (they say about 19months total active duty) plus 24 months in the selected reserve (the person could elect to stay on active duty also), followed by the balance of an 8 year commitment (up from 6) in the individual ready reserve. by Follow the link to read about it on the DoD website.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Vietnam-era draftees had a two year obligation. Enlistees owed Uncle Sam three or four years depending on their field of training. Draftees more than likely ended up in the grunts as an infantryman required less training and thus less expense and more bodies were needed.

[CedarDave]

Original remarks and Democratic spin here (together with angry FReeper comments on RAT tactics):

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

[mystery-ak]

Exactly....Rummy should have put it in those terms.

[StriperSniper]

I was commenting on the loss of that value when they left the service.

I watched that briefing and understood exactly what he meant. Those twisting his words are a disgrace to their profession. There is nobody more straight forward and accommodating than Sect. Rumsfeld.

[Lady In Blue]

Bump for a great Secretary of Defense! No way would I have taken his remarks to mean he was belittling anybody who served. I can't stand the media!

[VietVet]

I am veteran, and as conservative as just about anyone. I read Sec. Rumsfield's original statement, and I WAS OFFENDED. (BTW, I was RA, not a draftee) This clarfication from him helps, and I forgive him for making an over-generalization which was poorly worded to boot. His original statement ignored the fact that all persons, whether US (draftees), RA, or NG, serving 24 months or less on active duty, had a continuing Reserve obligation for the full six years. I served in the ARNG after leaving the Regular Army, and during our Summer Training, many of our positions were filled with unorganized reservists, called back for two weeks for additional training. This included one of the best Platoon Leaders I ever served under (at the end of Summer Training, we told him we wanted to throw a bag over his head and take him back to the Armory with us), although to be sure, he was not a draftee, but ROTC.

On the issue of whether longer enlistments and longer careers would make a better Armed Forces for a democracy or a free state, I defer judgement. There was, I believe, considerable opposition to the idea of a professional military class among the Founding Fathers.

[Valin]

bump