It is not just me feeling that great big ol' draft. Contrary to what the Kool-Aid drinkers want to believe, all the signs are pointing to a military draft. Sorry to say it looks like it will be soon. Get your child's Conscientious Objection file together today.
Here's some links to prove my well-researched point. I am not a Chicken Little here folks; this is much more than a "urban myth." It is real and it is coming.
"...The 'urban myth' about the draft's return keeps getting stronger. Some rather hard military facts persist as well. The Washington Monthly piece put it starkly: "America can remain the world's superpower. Or it can maintain its current all-volunteer military. It can't do both."
As Moskos predicted, the U.S. was unable to maintain its forces in Iraq without a draft. The Pentagon used what many have called the 'backdoor draft.' Since early 2004, at least 40,000 National Guardsmen and reserves (who make up 40% of those serving in Iraq) were compelled to remain on active duty after their tours were up--and more will soon face a similar fate.
Most of those affected were told officially that their enlistment was extended until 2031!
This is called 'stop loss,' an emergency measure which the President is supposed to be able to use only when Congress has declared war or a national emergency--which is not the case. Yet--like many other evidently unconstitutional measures--stop loss is a reality. In addition to the extensions of duty for the national guard and reserves, more than 5,500 of the 'Ready Reserves' have been called up for Iraq or Afghan duty.
These are older men and women whose regular reserve duty has ended--including grandmothers and grandfathers edging toward retirement, as well as men and women raising families and pursuing careers who had no idea they would be called again to duty...
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - DJRadiohead
I don't want to start a flame war and I truly hope this does not get one going.
I don't know if a draft is on the horizon or not.
I know those in power say there will not be a draft. I understand why some people would not take them at their word, but they might be telling the truth.
I took a look at the sources cited in this post and found their objectivity wanting. I understand why some people would not take them at their word, but they might be telling the truth.
This post illustrates something significant about human nature: those who want to believe it is all going to hell will have no problem finding examples to illustrate their point and those who want to believe everything is fine will have little trouble turning a blind eye.
That is the only thing this post manages to 'prove.' Stoploss is not the same thing as a draft. The presence of stoploss does not mean there will be a draft (although I understand why someone might see it as the first step towards one, I do). None of the data cited in this article definitively prove a draft is in our future.
2 - Eric Olsen
excellent points DJR, your overall observaton is wise.
It is imperative to separate out such "stopgap" steps as Stopgap, which is absolutely within the context of a volunteer military, and a compulsory draft. As I ahve said elsewhere and at length, there will not be a draft because it is to no one's political advantage. When soemthing is to no one's political advantage, it tends not to happen.
3 - Dave Nalle
It's not just that those in power don't want t draft, it's that they believe that a conscript army is inherently unworkable for the modern military. In addition, they are quite aware that the public is enormously anti-draft at any time other than a war in which our soil is directly threatened.
Before we even consider a draft they are going to try a variety of measures to increase recruitment, including raising salaries and sign-up incentives substantially, not to mention increased advertising.
Well, right now they aren't doing either, so I suspect that they aren't truly desperate yet. The truth is that if we cut back on our military commitments and focused on the key areas we'd have more than enough troops. The troops we have in Iraq right now are only 1/4 of our total troops. The rest are deployed in support areas or at bases many of which are increasingly unnecessary.
In addition, not only did all branches of the regular military meet their recruiting goals last year, but they exceeded those goals - in some cases by fairly large numbers - and those were expanded target numbers. We recruited more people into the regular military last year than are actually serving in Iraq right now.
The theory that recruiting is off is based on a small shortfall in army recruiting for ONE month this year, and on small shortfalls against expanded goals in the national guard. That's it.
If recruiting this year and next year are even close to recruiting from last year we will have substantially increased the overall size of the military. Combine that with closing a few superfluous bases in Europe to free up personnel and we ought to be able to reduce reliance on national guard and reservists substantially.
One thing that amused me about growpeace's earlier article is tha the complained that we were so desperate that we had forced 100 senior citizens to serve. Well, the truth is that most of those senior citizens were in the 55-60 year old range - not exactly doddering oldsters - and they were all extremely specialized officers, particularly doctors and none of them were sent anywhere near the front lines. In addition, they weren't forced to serve. They were offered the opportunity to serve and every single one of them volunteered. So it's nothing like the forcing of seniors to go fight that was described. IMO we should give more retirees this opportunity. They have less to tie them down, are usually very highly skilled, and their age is not as much of an issue as it was even 20 years ago. There are more than a few 60 year old retired marines who could still kick some ass in combat - and they could certainly still do some mean paperwork and wound stitching at that age. And unlike a lot of younger folks like growpeace they tend to understand that for the country to survive we have to be willing to actually shoulder some of the burdens like fighting for it.
So, basically, growpeace is manufacturing a crisis that doesn't exist for his own ends and it's hard to take him seriously when his facts are wrong and his conclusions are so farfetched.
Dave
4 - Marc
Growpeace, if you keep this up I'm investing in Alcoa stock, quickly.
With the demand for tinfoil hats you are generating surely the stock will go thru the roof.
Take this to the bank from a 20 year Navy vet. One who started his career just after the all volunter military started.
The mostly conscripted Navy members (about 90% at that time) I dealt with the first 5 years were the worse bunch of malcontents, drug addicts and all round a**holes you can possibly imagine.
As you may be able to guess, they didn't want to be there.
The voluntary military changed that. And those that remember that time will never, I repeat, never allow a draft to be started unless nuc weapons start flying around the globe at some point in the future.
One question for you Growpeace. The so-called backdoor draft was also utilized in the 1991 Gulf War. A war conducted with a much, much larger military than the present one.
So were you also running around with your foilhat then as you are now?
Or is it a recent edition to your wardrobe?
5 - Kristi
I keep hearing that the public is against the draft and that they just wouldn't stand for it. Yeah, right! One more "terrorist" attck on American soil will be enough to sway public opinion. The public may not like it but they will agree to it.
6 - Lisa Iannucci
Well another "Chicken Little." I've said it before and I'll say it again--don't be naive enough to assume that it is NOT in someone's political/financial interest to have U.S. troops throughout the Middle East for any particular reason. The greed and immorality of those in power knows no bounds, and having our guys control the oil supply has always been their ultimate goal. If you don't believe me, check out Greg Palast's site for documented proof from no less than the BBC...
so as for it benefiting no one, well that's not entirely true. these guys are willing to try anything. I wouldn't put it past them to do it regardless of the political fallout. the current situation cannot continue, the numbers are just not there.
The Center for American Progress is holding a forum next week on this subject, it is on a lot of people's minds here in DC, and deserves some serious thought.
And while we're at it, any thoughts on drafting women?
7 - Dave Nalle
>>So were you also running around with your foilhat then as you are now?<<
I don't think he was old enough to wear a tin hat during the first gulf war unless he was issued one by his parents.
>>and having our guys control the oil supply has always been their ultimate goal. If you don't believe me, check out Greg Palast's site for documented proof from no less than the BBC<<
That's true, when it comes to news there isn't much that's less accurate than the BBC. Oh wait, Greg Palast is less accurate, because he supplements his innacurate reporting with outright partisan lies.
As for the control of the oil supply, that's a worn out leftist claim which I have to debunk almost every day, even though the truth about it is obvious. The big oil companies are American. No matter who controls the oil, they get to transport and process and sell it. This would have been easier if we'd kept Saddam in power. Right now complete control of the Iraqi oil is and is going to stay in the hands of Iraqis. But of course they're going to sell it to those same big oil companies. This is not a conspiracy, this is because they're the ones who buy oil. So companies which are US dominated will profit from the oil. Just like they do from all the other oil in the world. Man, I should just make a Macro of this.
>>And while we're at it, any thoughts on drafting women?<<
Well, since there will never be a draft, there will never be a draft of women either.
Dave
8 - Dave Nalle
What amuses me about these two anti-draft threads is the way that 'growpeace' brought his own supporters with him from his little cult. All of a sudden right after he posts a bunch of yes-men/women who've never been seen here before start responding to support him. Rather amusing. Rather like Hitler planting supporters in the audiences in the beerhalls when he made speeches.
Dave
9 - DJRadiohead
I agree this is a serious subject and it deserves serious, careful consideration. On some of these posts it has gotten very little of either. *eyeroll*
I realize a draft could occur. I have seen analysts use the published numbers to come to that conclusion. I have heard analysts use those same numbers and come to a different conclusion.
I have yet to see what I consider to be credible evidence that a draft is inevitable. That does not mean we should not have this conversation. But I am not going to get into a tizz as if the sky has already started to fall. I do not see where it has.
What I have seen is what *I* would consider a lot of scare tactics from opponents of the administration's policy (I am not going to use the term anti-war because I like to believe we are all anti-war).
10 - David Flanagan
Good comments DJR and Dave. I agree.
No offense to you Growpeace, but you strike me as someone who is young. Young people can get very passionate and very convinced about things, and whatever you are focused on can become a bit of an obsession. Been there, done that, so I don't fault you for your passion.
I just think you are wasting yourself on a silly cause. You are wasting your brainpower, your time, your energy, and all your talents for something that is, at best, a one in one million chance.
Actually, I probably have a much better chance of winning the Maryland Lottery.
Thanks,
David
11 - SFC Ski
It would have been better if you'd stuck with one thread instead of starting another one which basically repeats the first.
12 - Victor Plenty
On senior citizens, I happen to personally know a National Guard soldier who turned 60 while serving in Iraq.
They haven't exactly been keeping him in the rear echelons, either. From what I hear, they've been using him as a convoy truck driver, one of the jobs most likely to draw attacks from the insurgent forces.
This might make one wonder about the factual accuracy of Dave's other claims.
As for the draft, it would not surprise me to see one go into effect, much as I'd like to believe Eric's reasoning on the subject. Our populace is easy to distract with big media coverage of small events with very little impact on our everyday lives, like the Michael Jackson trial.
The current administration has a consistent history of overconfidence in its ability to do whatever it feels like doing. If they decide a draft is a good idea for whatever reason, they are not likely to worry too much about the unpopularity of it.
13 - SFC Ski
The Individual Ready Reserves is not only senior citizens, anyone who has served less than eight years of an enlistment is a member. They are just not required to drill with a unit like a member of a reserve unit would. It's in the contract when they enlist, and empahsized upon ending active duty.
14 - Victor Plenty
The Guard soldier I know was regularly attending National Guard drills before his unit was called up and sent to Iraq.
I don't know how many years of active enlistment he has served, but he also served at least one full tour of active duty in Vietnam.
As he does not fit the description you posted, SFC Ski, he probably is not one of the Individual Ready Reserves.
15 - SFC Ski
In that case, no.
Someone else brought up Ready Reserves in one of these two threads, thought I'd address it. Yes there are more than a few Nam vets still on duty, both active and activated Reserve/ARNG, one of my colleagues is in that category. I lot of soldiers might do 20 years active and another 10 Reserve for a variety of reasons.
16 - Anna Lisa
Stop worrying and debating about whether or not a draft is coming. Such arguments are distractions - exercises in futile speculation. Better to take action to prepare yourselves just in case. Decide whether or not you are willing to kill on command, and, if not, put together a concientious objector file now.
Get info at www.objector.org
17 - SFC Ski
That's right, because nothing is worth fighting for.
18 - mike hollihan
Again with the deliberate misrepresentations and the willful misunderstandings by Growpeace. And the name calling! "Koolaid drinkers." Tsk tsk.
Stop-loss and the IRR are clearly explained to recruits. IRR is something you can sign up for independent of your service. Given that some IRR were activated for the first Gulf War, it was a long-shot gamble but not a surprise that they'd be needed today.
I have many friends and acquaintances in the military and they all agree: they don't want conscripts. As the poster above noted, they are substandard. Most definitely far below the quality of folks in the National Guard, most of whom are securely middle class and well-educated. Figuring out how to mesh them with the all-volunteer army we have today is a headache no one wants right now. They are a motivated, results-oriented force; why screw that up?
Again, as I've already said, folks who have no concept of military planning, contingency planning, preparedness, supply, logistics, etc. don't need to inject their ignorance into serious discussions. I don't turn to a flat-earther for a cartographer, I don't turn to a creationist for a physicist, I don't turn to a spiritualist for a doctor, so why I would listen to these folks talk about the military?
If it's a case of "I don't want to die." or "I'm scared." or "I don't want my only child to die before me." just say so! That can be dealt with and discussed. Even "I was hoping to stay in college a few more years, to do more dope, get laid some more and download thousands of songs from the university's server, plus I really had a career track planned, man, and I don't want to f*ck that up, know what I mean?" is at least honest, if hopelessly selfish.
But "All killing is wrong!" is just ludicrous. Even the devoutly religious recognise concepts like self-defense and justifiable war.
19 - Anna Lisa
Aggressive pacifism has a long and distinguished history even if it is a history of futility. Perhaps it is "ludicrus" to think it imperative that we figure out how to uphold basic human covenants including a prohibition on killing. We could invest our time and billions in developing non-violent conflict resolution techniques and declare 'war' on the causes of violence.
20 - Dave Nalle
>>Stop worrying and debating about whether or not a draft is coming. Such arguments are distractions - exercises in futile speculation. Better to take action to prepare yourselves just in case. <<
By all means, and let's also prepare ourselves for the coming Apocalypse by going to church regularly, and let's prepare ourselves for the coming ice age by building ecodomes to live in, and let's prepare ourselves for a comet hitting the earth by digging 5 mile deep bunkers, and let's prepare for alien invasion by investing in tinfoil hat technology. Anything else we should prepare for, chicken little?
>>Decide whether or not you are willing to kill on command, and, if not, put together a concientious objector file now.<<
No problem. I'm ready to kill on command. Just like a trained dog.
Dave
21 - Dave Nalle
>>Aggressive pacifism<<
Ah, so you're passive-aggressive? that explains much.
>> has a long and distinguished history even if it is a history of futility. <<
So, your efforts are made noble by the fact that virtually no one agrees with you and most people laugh at you? Perhaps you should consider that maybe they have a point.
>>Perhaps it is "ludicrus" to think it imperative that we figure out how to uphold basic human covenants including a prohibition on killing. <<
Last I checked the basic human covenant was against murder, not killing. Are you aware there's a difference?
>>We could invest our time and billions in developing non-violent conflict resolution techniques and declare 'war' on the causes of violence.<<
Maybe we could build a giant fairycake and invite everyone to a party?
Dave
22 - Steve Sheen with GrowPeace
Sorry, guys near the top, but you're dead wrong (as usual). The poster of the above material is 42 years old, a woman, and has lived through more than her share of chicken hawks like you making this world such a crappy place to live in. I know this beacuse she is my mother. Woopsy. Looks like someone forgot to get their facts straight (again). Dave, whoever you are, go back to your little military games, pop a few prozac and chill out. If you're so sure the draft isn't coming back, why don't you shove off and leave this place free for people who actually have something intelligent to say, instead of the same old rhetoric. If you're so gung ho for the military, why don't you go join them and leave us in peace? I'm willing to bet you'd be a little less cocky and annoying after you've seen combat. People like you make me laugh. I only have one word to describe you: PATHETIC
Peace,
Steve Sheen
23 - mike hollihan
Anna Lisa wrote: "Aggressive pacifism has a long and distinguished history even if it is a history of futility."
And there you go. The futile gesture is not a priori noble. The belief that it is comes from Romanticism, the realm of the swoony adolescent who is shocked & angry that the world is not a neat, Platonic ideal of principles but a messy, conflicted hubbub of imperfect people. The cleanliness and disengagement of idealism is preferred because it eliminates the need to make real-world consequential decisions that have ugly aftermaths requiring hands-on engagement.
People like the Friends Society (Quakers), who have a long history of pacifism and the principled reasoning that supports it, I can respect because they are willing to accept the societal consequences that flow from their decisions. But folks like Growpeace, who want to claim the mantle but not bear the weight of it, I don't.
24 - Steve Sheen
>>What amuses me about these two anti-draft threads is the way that 'growpeace' brought his own supporters with him from his little cult. All of a sudden right after he posts a bunch of yes-men/women who've never been seen here before start responding to support him. Rather amusing. Rather like Hitler planting supporters in the audiences in the beerhalls when he made speeches.<<
Speaking of tinfoil hats, I think Dave here might need one. He seems to be getting paranoid. You know what's funny? How right after we post here, a bunch of chicken hawks like you start posting right-wing propaganda here. Rather like how the U.S. planted a few flower throwing Iraqis in the crowds so they could show it to viewers at home and avoid the issue of a peaceful population, suddenly converted to people who would like to see the U.S. and everyone in it dead. And yet people like you say that we're over there to make America "safe". Oh yes, I feel much safer now.
>>No problem. I'm ready to kill on command. Just like a trained dog.<<
Ahhh. This would explain a lot. I can just picture Dave sitting in his chair, sweating feverishly as he types utter drivel. If you're so ready to kill, go start murdering, yes, MURDERING, Iraqis, and leave us in peace.
Peace,
Steve Sheen
25 - Anna Lisa
One man's killing is another man's murder. We'll just leave it up to self proclaimed elitist pigs to decide which is which.
flame on Dave