Republicans & Conservatives Archives

The draft idea was created by the democrats to scare the american mothers. Dem. Congressman Charles Rangold is the sponsor of that bill and CBS of course is the only network that has mentioned it in the air.
The Democrats are hurting and they are going back to the scareing technique, the draft, social security, medicare, etc,
Thanks to our FREE RADIO and the bloggers they can pull that one on us.

Evangelio, WRONG! This topic was first raised some time ago by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel who said thinning of our troops could end up demanding reconsideration of the draft.

Now that our troops are spread too thin to address nukes in N. Korea and Iran, Republicans and Democrats in Congress are debating on both sides of the draft issue.

Of course there is no stopping spinners. Many objective folks though visit factcheck.org.

Hagel certainly had a hand in it, but he was not the kick-off choice for this move. Rangel has been talking about this for years, predating the Iraq war, basically talking about how, when conflicts occur, largely disproportionate numbers of minorities are sent (also widely debunked). He has often suggested that a uniform draft is the answer. Hagel was certainly in with him, but not the champion of the cause, nor the progenator.

See this Draft article to see where a Republican first raised this issue.

Two different issues, Damon. Hagel raised the issue in direct response to Bush policy. Rangel has touted the issue since, as you say, before 9/11 so his context had no bearing on Bush policy as an issue.

Draft Rumors? Perhaps the widening war in Iraq, the extending of Reserve cycles, The commitment by both candidates with the “we can’t fail” and “stay the course” diatribes.

Perhaps wise folks see a pattern here.Maybe magically everything will resolve itself in a few months. I wonder which is more likely?

Timely story, I heard a rumor this morning that Kerry’s line of attack for the debates tonight will be focused on the threat of a draft. It’ll be interesting to see if that’s true. Bold strategy; if all else fails, try to scare people into voting for you. It’s worked for years with the senior citizens (the GOP wants to eliminate social security), minorities (the GOP wants to role back civil rights), and women (the GOP wants you barefoot and pregnant). Now since Kerry’s loosing the soccer moms to security moms, he’s got to try and scare them back into line.

Well, we’ll see what happens; I don’t think people are that dumb anymore.

-D

Oh, honestly.
Remember how Republicans opposed nation building? That changed when something unexpected happened, 9/11.

Damon & EG, do you suppose there is that small, teensy-weensy possibility of something unexpected happening abroad?
Of course, the Bush Administration doesn’t believe in planning ahead if it involves anything unpleasant, or at least not informing the public. Post-war Iraq? Flowers & chocolates! Liberation parades! And the cost? Why, practically nothing! We’ll pay for it with their oil!
War with Iran, or Syria, or North Korea? Nah, no chance. They’d NEVER do something so impolite as take advantage of a disastrously extended US strategic position, would they? Why, we can maintain the current posture in Iraq for decades… er, years… er, months.
Wait! We’ll just extend the current military enlistments permanently! Yeah, that’s the ticket! And those National Guard & Reservists? They’re full time now too! Hey, they knew this could happen when they signed up- they practically had it coming to them, right?
Of course, that’s ridiculous. To address the point:
The US cannot maintain it’s current military position in Iraq for more than another year. It doesn’t matter who is president. Iraq is lost (but don’t worry- we’ll spin the fact Saddam is gone into total victory next year). We’ll withdraw precisely because a draft is not a desirable option. I’d like to think the UN or another country will step in to help, but that’s highly unlikely, even with a Kerry administration.
It’s common knowledge NO ONE wants a draft, particularly not the military. But to assume we can traipse across the copses, or skip across the Elysian fields and have nothing untoward happen to our country’s position aborad is akin to living in a fool’s paradise. A draft IS a very real possibility, Damon & EG, because the game board might be a little bigger than generally assumed, and the ‘game’ much less predictable than supposed.

Delzario, where do you propose we get the troops to invade Iran if it becomes necessary to stop them from nuclearizing their arsenal and threatening a solution to the Israel Palestinian conflict?

Hmmm!!!????

Recent reports of congress people discussing the draft include well known Republicans like Sam Nunn, Chuch Hagel, Mc Cain, and Warner. Who is scaring who here….?

A bill before the House Armed Services Committee would require the induction of young men into the military “to receive basic military training and education for a period of up to one year,” according to a summary of the measure.

The bill, called the “Universal Military Training and Service Act,” introduced last fall, was sponsored by Reps. Nick Smith, R-Mich., and Curt Weldon, R-Pa. If passed, it would require all males 18-22 to “receive basic military training and education as a member of the armed forces,” unless otherwise exempted under provisions of the measure.

Jan. 25, 2002

A little surprising non-Republicans must educate some folks here about what representatives of their own party has been up to.

Dodging the Draft will be more difficult than during the Vietnam era. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a “Smart Border Declaration,” which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers from fleeing to Canada. Signed by Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Manley, and US Homeland Security Director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a “pre-clearance agreement” of people entering and departing each country.

The following is from (R) Chuck Grassley’s website:

Q: Do you support reviving the draft?

A: No, not at this time. A draft is an instrument of last resort.

The date appears to be Oct. 1, 2002. He was, and probably now has to, leave his options open in light of what is happening in Iran and N. Korea.

I have to wonder if Republican flood gates will open on discussing reinstatement of the draft right after Bush is reelected.

David,

Perhaps you should gather your thoughts and post once. The Universal Military Training and Service Act, HR 3598, was actually introduced in 12/2001, not last fall. Indications are it’s not going anywhere (because it’s too extreme), according to the CCCO. The other bill was introduced by Rangel, McDermott, Conyers, Lewis (GA), Stark and Abercrombie. That would be HR 163, put forth in 01/2003. I don’t believe that there’s a groundswell for either bill.

Both prez candidates are on record as being against draft reinstatement. SecDef has said it’s not a good idea. The military isn’t for it because I don’t think that the professionals want to put their faith in folks who may not want to be there.

As of now, nobody is recommending the draft other than folks who really don’t want the draft. They just want to put a (currently) non-issue on the table for their own purposes. I agree that one of those purposes is to scare draft age men, 19-26,(and women) into voting. That demographic isn’t known for going to the polls nearly as much as older groups. That demographic trends more liberal in their voting habits. I think it’s clear who benefits here.

Can things happen that would raise the specter of reinstating the draft? Sure. We could be simultaneously attacked by N. Korea and/or Iran, as Don suggested. If that were to happen (yea, right), I don’t think a draft would be needed.

Good points, Alan.

Also, we’ve already established that there are members of both parties who have supported this, but to call this a Republican issue when the vast number of those that support the issue are Democrats is ludicrous. The idea is continuously pushed by the left, not the right, and is used as a scare tool. Here’s a tasty article from The Hill (hardly a partisan rag) that gives a littile bit more background on it.

The Hill:Dems to revive draft demand

This non-issue is being Chicken-Littled to death. Nixon ended the draft and there hasn’t been a serious attempt to reinstate it since then. As has been stated here, the military doesn’t want it because they’d rather have the same quality volunteers they have now.

Since the draft was ended, there have been periods when enlistments fell short of goals, especially in the Guard and Reserves. These tend to run in cycles and eventually it evens out. But at no time, to my knowledge, has there ever been a serious degradation in mission capability because of it.

But personally I’d be very much in favor of mandatory federal service for all able-bodied 18 year olds, both male and female — no exceptions. Those who chose to enter the military would do so and the remainder would serve…say, two years of public service. It could be anything from working for the National Park Service to any of the other bazillion government programs.

It would mean having to pass up fraternity keggers and such for a couple of years, but think of it as just giving a little something back for the opportunities available to citizens of this country. Besides, starting college at 20 or 21, especially after clearing underbrush in forests for a couple of years, just might make for better and more dedicated students.

Why would the draft be a Presidential issue? I haven’t looked at this stuff, but I don’t think a President can institute a draft.

Is this being used against Senators and Congressmen?

This is not a election-inspired issue, and not (purely, at least) a Democratic plot. I’ve seen emails like this floating around for months - it’s sort of like the Mrs Fields virus, someone I know will hear about it and then email me or my wife. I blogged this last June:

http://wcohen.blogspot.com/2004/06/draft-beer-not-programmers.html

I don’t think a draft is particularly likely. If it happens it will probably be different from drafts in the past. The army is not particularly looking for anyone that can hump a pack, survive dysentry, and get shot at. The shortages I’ve heard of are for linguists and computer programmers.

On the otherhand, committing massive numbers of troops to Iraq with no international support and no exit plan certainly didn’t make it any less likely.

Being of the libertarian mindset, at this point, personally, I am against any compulsory service forced upon citizens by the government, unless we are talking about a major, on-our-shores threat to the country. Be it fighting overseas or cutting shrubs in New England, I’m on the mind that compulsory service is only a measure of last resort. But that’s just me, and I think I’m on the libertarian fringe of the GOP.

There’s plenty of blame to go around on this issue though. Its a scare tactic, and I can’t completely discount that the GOP would stay away from the tactic if the shoe were on the other foot (though I’d like to think they would never try such a scheme).

But then, politicians are an unsavory lot. ;)

The question of the draft is not nor will it ever be off the table. Yes, currently our troops strength is down, reenlistments are down, and recuiting goals are down, but neither Bush or Kerry want to go back to the draft. However, both candidates can not afford to remove the idea completely. For once they state they will not use the draft to boost our troop strength, Al Qaeda will open a new front on the war.

David wrote,

Delzario, where do you propose we get the troops to invade Iran if it becomes necessary to stop them from nuclearizing their arsenal and threatening a solution to the Israel Palestinian conflict?

Same with North Korea. Are you saying that foot soldiers are the best way to deal with a nuclear threat?

I am certainly no military expert but it seems to me the threats we deal with today would not be solved by a draft.

This is nothing but a Democratic scare tactic just like Delzario posted.

Well, the trouble here is, we might actually need a draft if worse comes to worse. Our Army is getting strained with the deployment in Iraq. Alan Sourk wrote of simultaneous wars in Iran and North Korea being necessary to bring the draft back- I disagree. Either one will be a tough nut to crack. If we have to invade Iran, it will be a military action of Eisenhower proportion. It’s a much larger, much better equipped and much more committed enemy. The DPRK might be the easier of the two, but then again, the one group of people that’s remained well fed in the country has been the Army.

All in all, it will be a political black mark on whoever has to do it, but if the international situation really goes to hell, My generation will start getting the draft notices.

“What am I missing here guys! Troops! Are you kidding?”
Isn’t that what Rumsfeld said about the estimates for how many troops it would take to occupy Iraq?
The US has superior military might by orders of magnitude. Winning any war is easy. It’s what comes next that is so difficult. For example, the US or Israel could easily bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. And then… ?
It’s weird; people are utterly unwilling to think the Iraqi situation through, or the Iranian situation. The very idea that US actions might have consequences seems to be beyond the electorate’s ability to conceive. The idea that other countries might do something unpredictable and violent is literally inconceivable for many. The US is well on its way to the biggest foreign policy debacle in its history- yes, maybe even bigger than Viet Nam, by the time we’re finished- and people look at talk of a draft as an attempt to scare the electorate- or losing Iraq to Iranian control and Islamic fundamentalism as defeatism.

Stephen,

Please carefully read what I wrote. I was musing on whether the situation might change, that might call for a consideration of draft reinstatement.

Don (earlier post in this thread) mentioned the possibility of N. Korea or Iran taking advantage of our strategic weakness due to the over extension of our forces in Iraq. If you’ll note, I mentioned the possibility of them attacking us, not the other way around. And my parenthetic use of (yea, right) indicates my opinion of that likelihood.

Different story if we initiate action against either N. Korea, Syria, or Iran. I’d like to think that the braintrust that is the administration would have enough since to not engage in a military action without having carefully considered the necessary logistics to give our forces what they require to be victorious.

The distinction is important (who initiates) and would have a huge impact on whether we need the draft or not.

I did not opine on the ability of our armed forces to manage mulitple efforts against Iraq and N. Korea and/or Iran in their current state.

Lastly the original post was about the Draft myth that is being played out by a few in the media and their motivations, etc, not about military strategy or logistics.

Don,
I guess I am still missing the obvious.

Which is what some people think I do regularly.

But didn’t Israel take out Saddam’s nuclear site without any troops on the ground?

MAW. Iraq’s Nucleur Program was concentrated all in one place. That’s why Israel could destroy it. Since that time, Nations have scattered their programs everywhere. Libya had at least THREE main labs and all vital development were done in another dozen sites. North Korea depends on underground labs and conventional facilities converted for nucleur development. Iran has one main site but we don’t know where they kept the data and spareparts. Therefore, you need to bomb at least a dozen sites.

Thanks Aldous.

Sounds reasonable.

But do you still think it can not be done completely from the air?

The Logistics of the matter are what keep the story alive. If we weren’t so overcommitted and under strain, nobody would worry about it. Regardless, whether we attacked first or others did so, manpower issues would potentially figure into the equation.

Anybody notice Bush take the draft off the table in the debate for his next administration? Anyone notice in 2000 he would not engage in nation building? Can anyone put 2 and 2 together?

Either the draft is not off the table and he is lying again. Or, the draft is off the table and should our nation need it, Bush being the “you know where I stand” president, would not reinstate the draft if our nation’s survival depended upon it.

Would that entail a strategic flip-flop, or a tactical flip-flop?

AP, appears our last comments put an end to this thread. Nothing like a gotcha Catch 22 to end a debate.

Nice post Damon, too bad everyone has to try to spin facts to support their side.
What I find odd is that rangel introduced this bill as a scare tactic to get votes, like you said, but also so that the so-called evil, rich white republicans would think twice before sending the poor people off to fight for them, because their kids could also be drafted. He was tired of only the poor people dying for US causes. Whats odd though is that he didn’t have any problem with the poor people dying for UN causes during the 90’s.
This was nothing more than a political stunt to scare up votes for the Democratic party and nothing else.

I just want to know why democrats just can’t try to win using their vision of America. All we’ve heard for months is their assessment of the current administration. Then we get falsification of documents by the DNC used on CBS (come on guys just fess up to it - we’re not stupid), now draft rumors and using the race card against Republicans. Next will be the social security scare tactics for the elderly. Don’t you guys have a new playbook? The news might just run with your press releases but we’re not buying it. Get a vision and stick to it. Don’t disguise your ideas as your own when the president is doing those very things already (Kerry’s 4 point plan). Vote for something not against something