Drafted!

Bush War Adviser: Let's Consider a Draft

2007-08-16T12:23:00.000-07:00

"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute and deputy national security adviser said in an interview with National Public Radio.

"There's both a personal dimension of this, where this kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living room conversations within these families," he said. "And ultimately, the health of the all-volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions."

Who ever said there was anything wrong with being obvious? Generally speaking, long drawn-out wars in unfriendly urban climates tend to induce a fair amount of stress amongst all involved parties.

article from Breit Bart

A Little Congressional Investigation

2007-07-22T11:53:00.000-07:00

As Washington tries to figure out how best to maintain the Surge for another year, the Congressional Budgeting Office launched an official review of what the potential effects of a draft might be.

"Drafting people could make it easier for the Army to reach its 2012 goal of 547,000 soldiers. It might also save some money if Congress opted to pay draftees less than volunteers. But the downside, the report claims, would be a less effective fighting force, thanks to a sudden influx of draftees who would remain in uniform for much shorter spells than today's all-volunteer soldiers."

Nice. Well, at least it's nice to know that if you got drafted, at least you wouldn't have to worry about what to do with all that extra money you'd be saving while fighting for your country.

article from NY Times

The Young People Have Spoken

2007-06-28T13:41:00.000-07:00

In a recent survey of that magical demographic, the 17-29 age group,

"42 percent of young Americans thought it was likely or very likely that the nation would reinstate a military draft over the next few years — and two-thirds said they thought the Republican Party was more likely to do so. And 87 percent of respondents said they opposed a draft.."

In other words, nearly half of the potential candidates for military service believe that their leaders will force them into war. Those are some staggering numbers. Here's to hoping that the youth, in this case, is wrong.

article from NY Times

In Iraq for the Long Haul

2007-06-20T09:25:00.000-07:00

"Gen. David Petraeus, Iraq war commander, on Sunday suggested that conditions on the ground might not be stable enough by September to justify a drop in force levels and predicted that stabilizing Iraq could take as long as a decade."

Hmmm... As long as a decade? Where do those troops all come from? At this rate, anyone who signs up for military service might as keep their calendar open for the next ten years or so.

article from MSNBC

Extend Those Tours, People! We're in a War!

2007-04-12T10:30:00.000-07:00

"Beginning immediately, all active-duty Army soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will serve 15-month tours — three months longer than the usual standard, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday."

You have to feel for these poor guys and girls. It's just, where are we going to find more troops for this war?

article from MSNBC

Billion Dollars for Bonuses

2007-04-11T13:06:00.000-07:00

Don't get me wrong, but I'm fairly sure there are better ways to spend a billion dollars than on paying off our soldiers to re-enlist. These guys are heroes, yes, but so are teachers, and last time I checked, none of them got $150,000 bonuses for agreeing to stay on for another six years. Granted, they're not getting shot at and killed on a daily basis.

"Besides underscoring the extraordinary steps the Pentagon must take to maintain fighting forces, the rise in costs for re-enlistment incentives is putting strains on the defense budget, already strapped by the massive costs of waging war and equipping and caring for a modern military."

article from the MSNBC

Afghanistan Troop Increase

2007-02-15T11:11:00.000-08:00

Looks like Iraq isn't the only place that needs new troops.

"President Bush said today that extending the stay of 3,200 American troops in Afghanistan would help the NATO-commanded force there combat an anticipated spring offensive by the Taliban. Mr. Bush said the those troops would remain there for another four months and then would be replaced by new force of comparable size that would remain there for the “foreseeable future.” The increase would boost American forces in the country to 27,000, the highest level since 2001."

Well, at least NATO is providing the majority of the troops - at least the burden doesn't follow solely on the Americans.

"Of the 35,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, about 13,000 are American. About 9,000 other American troops in the country operate outside the NATO mission."

Whoops.

article from the New York Times

Bring in the Neo-Cons

2007-02-14T09:41:00.000-08:00

From the New York Times:

"The number of waivers granted to Army recruits with criminal backgrounds has grown about 65 percent in the last three years, increasing to 8,129 in 2006 from 4,918 in 2003, Department of Defense records show... [Sample crimes] include aggravated assault, burglary, robbery and vehicular homicide."

Nice. I am all for second chances and priorly maladapted personalities that are now knee-deep in reform, but this strikes me as somewhat bleak. If there's anywhere in the world that a strong moral compass would go a long way, it's Iraq. God forbid an ex-felon has a brief relapse - another Abu-Ghraib and that'll probably be it for America in the Middle East for the next ten years.

article from the New York Times

Bring on the Recruiters!

2006-12-25T08:20:00.000-08:00

An army recruiter's story

"A 39-year-old woman who once worked as a chemical specialist in the Army found herself down and out and living in a women’s shelter, (the recruiter) said. The Army came calling one more time, and she re-enlisted. Now, the woman is back in uniform at her previous job, serving in South Korea."

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses... so that I can slap a uniform on them and ship them off to Korea. I understand that times are tough, and who am I to judge? But does this strike anyone as a little outlandish?

article from the New York Times

Commander Said to Be Open to More Troops

2006-12-24T08:14:00.000-08:00

For the first time, General Casey is saying that he's open to more troops.

"Until recently, the top ground commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., has argued that sending more American forces into Baghdad and Anbar Province, the two most violent regions of Iraq, would increase the Iraqi dependency on Washington, and in the words of one senior official, “make this feel more like an occupation.”

Well, according to the NY Times, this has changed. My question is, why does a guy like this change his mind? Where's the pressure coming from? Or is this just a coincidental change-of-heart? Looks like to me like someone is trying to get all their ducks in a row. Cheney, anyone?

article from the New York Times

Where to Find 20,000 More Troops

2006-12-17T15:25:00.000-08:00

It's official: W. and company are officially looking for a way to get 20,000 more troops prepared for war in Iraq.

"Discussion of increasing the number of American troops... has coursed through Washington for two months. But the decision to ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to specify where the additional forces could be found among overstretched Army, Marine and National Guard units... signifies a turn in the debate."

From the article, it looks like they'll mostly be forcing present-soldiers to stay on for longer tours of duty, while rushing through the soldiers currently at boot camp, which strikes me as unfair on every count. That said, you never know when this administration will kick it up another notch and dip into the biggest reserve: the civilian population.

article from the New York Times

We Need More Men (and Women, too)

2006-11-22T13:47:00.000-08:00

"Pentagon officials conducting a review of Iraq strategy are considering a substantial but temporary increase in American troop levels and the addition of several thousand more trainers to work with Iraqi forces, a senior Defense Department official said Monday. The idea, dubbed the “surge option” by some officials, would involve increasing American forces by 20,000 troops or more for several months in the hope of improving security, especially in Baghdad."

20,000 more troops? I wonder where they're coming from.

article from the New York Times

Just Thought You Should Know, They're Ready for Us

2006-11-21T16:21:00.000-08:00

Well, if this isn't a sign of bad things on the horizon, I don't know what is. From CNN:

"The Selective Service System, an agency independent of the Defense Department, says it's ready to respond quickly to any crisis that would threaten to overwhelm the current all-volunteer military.

'We're the fire department,' said spokesman Pat Schuback at the service headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. 'We're prepared to do the mission with whatever time period we're asked to do it in. Our current plan is 193 days and that was based on manpower analysis.' "

The fire department? Nice one. Even if you are fully, 100% ready to implement, why would you give a press conference to let everybody know? Probably because word has come down from the top to start preparing the public for dire possibilities. Thank god Rumsfeld's out. Otherwise, I think we'd be marching off to North Korea tomorrow. Let's hope not.

article from CNN

John McCain: More troops needed in Iraq

2006-11-20T08:05:00.000-08:00

In his interview on Meet the Press yesterday, the 2008 GOP presidential frontrunner made it clear that he wants more soldiers on the ground in the Middle East.

“The consequences of failure are so severe that I will exhaust every possibility to try to fix this situation. Because it’s not the end when American troops leave. The battleground shifts, and we’ll be fighting them again,” McCain said.

Well, John, it certainly is a quagmire over there, and every political mind in the country seems to be taking the "there is no easy answer" position. But if we're going to significantly increase the American troop presence in Iraq, where are the troops going to come from?

article from MSNBC

Rep. Charles Rangel: Bring Back The Draft!

2006-11-19T19:49:00.000-08:00

House Representative Charles Rangel, a New York democrat, has announced his intention to introduce a bill that will reinstate a draft for U.S. citizens ages 18-26

"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said.

He's tried conscription legislation before, and hasn't gotten very far with it. But with countries on the verge of establishing tactical nuclear weapons, who knows what Congress might give the greenlight to.

article from Yahoo! News

Top General: We May Need More Troops

2006-10-29T18:04:00.000-08:00

At a recent press conference, General George Casey said the following:

“Now, do we need more troops?” General Casey said. “Maybe. And as I’ve said all along, if we do, I will ask for the troops we need, both coalition and Iraq.”

If he's already asking for troops before the election, just imagine what would happen after the election, especially if Republicans maintain control of the Congress. I understand the man's trying to do his job, but the reality is that for him to do his job, he needs more soldiers. And where's he going to get those soldiers when the existing numbers just aren't there? Look out... it looks like this war is not going to be scaled back any time in the near future.

article from the New York Times

W Lays the Groundwork for Future Recruits

2006-10-19T07:57:00.000-07:00

Strained, Army Looks to Guard For More Relief

2006-09-22T15:35:00.000-07:00

“Strains on the Army from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have become so severe that Army officials say they may be forced to make greater use of the National Guard to provide enough troops for overseas deployments.”

Well, they’re calling in the National Guard. They’ve already called in recently retired Marines. There’s not too many people with any kind of real military training left. I guess they could call up inactive veterans – hey guys, would you mind putting your lives, your wives and children on hold for a year? You know, throw down one last time for Uncle Sam?

article from the New York Times

Nice one, dingleberry

2006-09-01T08:48:00.000-07:00

Call in the Retired Marines

2006-08-22T21:18:00.000-07:00

What up happens when you run out of active Marines to call up? Easy - call up the retired ones!

“Starting in October, as many as 2,500 Marines in the Individual Ready Reserve will begin receiving involuntary activation orders to report for a year of duty, according to a Marine Corps manpower official.” The Individual Ready Reserve is a group of Marines who have already completed their contracts. Looks like your back on duty, fellas. Thanks Rummy.

article from the Marine Corps Times

Wonder what happens when they run out of retired Marines? My guess is that they probably recruit new ones – you and me.

Looks like Hollywood's Expecting a Draft, too

2006-04-29T16:48:00.000-07:00

Just stumbled across this movie on Wikipedia:

"Day Zero is a film set in the near future where the state of global terrorism has forced the military to reinstate the draft... the feature follows three friends who've received their induction notice and have 30 days to report for duty."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_Zero

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0768183/

Sounds like some pretty relevant stuff. Tough to imagine what I'd do if they told me to report for duty - probably catch the first plane to Ireland. If the cast is a measure of things, it looks pretty legit. It's got Elijah Wood and Chris Klein (he was a riot in "Election"). I'll definitely be looking for this one when it comes out.

A Few Responses to “Making Sacrifices”

2006-04-21T21:11:00.000-07:00

Apparently, Mr. Kane’s article touched a bit of a chord. Here are some reader responses published in the NY Times.

To the Editor:

President Bush has turned me into someone I never thought I would
become: a supporter of the Selective Service.

My support is not based, as Paul Kane ("A Peaceful Call to Arms," Op-
Ed, April 20) would have it, on a belief that we Americans are
willing to "make sacrifices in the form of military service, homeland
defense and conservation," at least not for dubious adventures in
distant nations whose internal workings we do not understand and
whose direct threat to our own well-being is far from clear.

Rather, if all of us across the nation faced losing partners and
children and brothers and sisters and neighbors and perhaps our own
lives, we would think long and hard about whether a war was worth
fighting.

Julie E. Dinnerstein
New York, April 20, 2006

•

To the Editor:

"A Peaceful Call to Arms" advances an absurd reason for reinstating
the draft of young men and women on the grounds that it will deter
Iran's nuclear program and conceivably an American attack on Iran.

A draft will only create more potential American cannon fodder and
eventual war memorials to the dead, sharpen antiwar protests
everywhere, awaken renewed civil strife at home and add ever more
billions to our national debt, not to mention whetting the appetite
of our bellicose administration and its neoconservative allies eager
to promote yet another war in the volatile Middle East.

Rather than a draft, what may prevent another American military
adventure in the Middle East is for Washington to stop threatening
Iran, recall the bulk of our troops in Iraq, work hard to establish a
just peace between Israelis and Palestinians and, of course, learn to
control our insatiable appetite for oil and the demands it makes on
our nation's military.

Murray Polner
Great Neck, N.Y., April 20, 2006

•

To the Editor:

Whether or not a peacetime draft would help defuse current tension
between the United States and Iran (a highly debatable suggestion),
the question is: at what cost?

Reactions to a draft would likely tear apart the social fabric of
this country, and represent another blow to civil liberties and
freedom. Feasible does not equal desirable; a draft is not our only
option.

Paul Kane would possibly reply to this that a draft would build
character in our citizens. Perhaps, but this legislation of morality
is antithetical to American, democratic values. I am not willing to
destroy America to protect it.

Benjamin Guthrie
Northfield, Minn., April 20, 2006

•

To the Editor:

As the mother of two twentysomething daughters, I have no intention
of standing quietly by if the military draft is reinstated. I, and a
number of others, do not support women in the military, on the front
lines, despite the louder voices of my feminist sisters pushing this
as a vehicle for equality.

Female soldiers and interrogators at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, used
to soften up prisoners for interrogation by engaging in sexually
demeaning acts directed at the prisoners, were sexually exploited in
the most vile way.

These behaviors are not the acts of a few renegades but the policies
of our new streamlined military under the tutelage of Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the cooperation of Maj. Gen.
Geoffrey D. Miller. The treatment of our soldiers and our prisoners
under this regime is devoid of moral consciousness.

As for calming down the Iranian nuclear wildfire, I think reinstating
the draft would only fan the flames.

Joan Z. Greiner
Flemington, N.J., April 20, 2006

•

To the Editor:

By focusing upon an imaginary future conflict with Iran, Paul Kane
misses the best argument in favor of national conscription: it would
bring our present-day misadventure in Iraq to a hasty conclusion.

Most of my students are vehemently opposed to American involvement in
the Iraq war, but very few of them have engaged in organized protest
against it. If they knew that they could be drafted, however, they'd
take to the streets. So would millions of other young people, along
with their parents and grandparents.

Our elected officials would sit up and take notice, ending the war in
Iraq before their own daughters and sons faced the terrifying
prospect of fighting and dying there. Fear has a way of concentrating
the mind.

Jonathan Zimmerman
New York, April 20, 2006
The writer is a professor of education and history at New York
University.

Now they're offering bounties for existing soldiers who recruit!

2006-04-21T07:37:00.000-07:00

Check out this email that was blasted to our men and women currently serving:

"Soldiers:

Every Soldier is a scout not only on the battlefield, but also on the homefront. Help the Army find qualified recruits who want to answer the Call to Duty and you will earn $1000.

The Army now gives a cash bonus to Soldiers for referring qualified, non-prior service applicants who complete Basic and Advanced Individual Training (AIT). Referrals may be to any component of the Army (Active, Reserve or National Guard) and do not have to be in the same component as the referring Soldier. Immediate family members do not qualify as a referral and applicants must not have already conducted an appointment with a recruiter. . ."

They're getting clever - aren't they? I think when the bounty reaches $5k then they'll be onto something.

A Message from Harvard about Reinstituting the Draft

2006-04-20T16:56:00.002-07:00

Sometimes, I get the feeling that some of our policy-makers live on a different planet. Their grasp of reality, or lack thereof, boggles my mind. Check out this op-ed piece that appeared in the April 20th NY Times:

“Now, President Bush and Congress should reinstitute selective service under a lottery without any deferments.”

article from the J.F.K School of Government

This nut job looks hell-bent on seeing us all with M-16’s and combat fatigues.

NYT: "Young Officers Leaving Army at a High Rate"

2006-04-10T06:25:00.000-07:00

article from the New York Times

The headline from this article pretty much says it all. However, it's worth thinking about. I've been arguing that the draft will come back because of a shortage 'at the bottom' - in the rank and file troops where enlistment numbers have been markedly shrinking even as enticements grow. And that's still the case.

However, this article presents a different problem: dwindling numbers at the top. If you think it's tough to draft Privates, you can't imagine how tough it is to draft Second Lieutenants.
By definition they need to be smarter, more experienced, better trained, and better equipped to lead. Translation: they have huge opportunities in life compared to the average grunt who enlists. That means the armed forces are going to have to seriously up the ante to get and retain these people.

And just in case you think this is an isolated problem, read the article: the numbers cut across West Point grads, ROTC grads, and existing officers. At greater rates than ever they're leaving the armed forces at the earliest possible moment.

More food for thought...

Virtual Bush talks about the Internets

2006-03-18T07:49:00.000-08:00

This is cool - don't lose your pad when you go off to war...

2006-02-25T09:43:00.000-08:00

Did you know that there are laws to protect you and your loved ones from losing your home while you're away at war? I sure didn't. I was happy to come across this article in the NYT today - check it out:

article from the New York Times

Uncle Rummy

2006-02-12T08:33:00.000-08:00

Now they're targetting Latinos

2006-02-09T05:59:00.000-08:00

From the NY Times:

article from the New York Times

In Denver and other cities where the Hispanic population is growing, recruiting Latinos has become one of the Army's top priorities. From 2001 to 2005, the number of Latino enlistments in the Army rose 26 percent, and in the military as a whole, the increase was 18 percent.

The increase comes at a time when the Army is struggling to recruit new soldiers and when the enlistment of African-Americans, a group particularly disillusioned with the war in Iraq, has dropped off sharply, to 14.5 percent from 22.3 percent over the past four years.

Not all Latinos, though, are in step with the military's recruitment goals. In some cities with large Hispanic populations, the focus on recruitment has polarized Latinos, prompting some to organize against recruiters and to help immigrants learn their rights.

Critics say recruiters, who are under pressure to meet quotas, often use their charm and an arsenal of tactics, including repeated calls to a recruit, lunch at a favorite restaurant and trips to the gym. The Army also parades rigged-out, juiced-up Hummers wherever youths gather as promotional tools."

What will they think of next?

And the hits just keep on rollin'

2006-02-05T19:37:00.000-08:00

This time courtesy of the New York Times;

article from the New York Times

"Maj. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick is trying to retool the Army's strategy for fighting a war within a war: persuading young people and their families that the military is a good choice, even when combat duty is almost certain. The general has plans to attract teenagers with video games, Web sites, cellphone text messages and helicopter simulators in the back of 18-wheelers. He wants to win over parents through commercials on the Food Network, visits to rodeos and Nascar races, and recruiters who have recently returned from Iraq and Afghanistan and can address concerns about war. And if that fails, General Bostick also has cash: $40,000 in bonuses for some recruits who take dangerous jobs; $1,000 for soldiers who persuade friends to sign up."

Here are some more choice tidbits . . .

-The resources to enlist people include "roughly 8,000 military recruiters nationwide, hundreds of civilians at Fort Knox, an advertising budget of about $200 million, and a horde of marketing tools, including a fleet of 13 tractor-trailers retrofitted to show off the Army's latest technology."

-Bad boys!: "Last May, the Army retrained its recruiters on ethics after several were found to have cut corners to enlist unqualified soldiers."

-Oops: "And for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the Army, the Army Reserve and the National Guard all fell short of their recruiting goals. The active-duty Army missed its target of 80,000 recruits by about 8 percent, its biggest shortfall since 1979."

-More fun: The Army met its recruiting goals for the past 3 months but "more than 10 percent of the recruits had scores on the military's aptitude test that were near the bottom of the scale — more than double the annual 4 percent limit set by the Department of Defense." and "The Army's monthly goals were smaller, too." Uhhh....

Then they go on to talk about the economy, competing with private sector jobs. Come ON people - can't you see where this is all going?!?!?

Rumsfeld responds . . .

2006-01-25T19:40:00.000-08:00

Well no surprises here, Rumsfeld disagrees with the conclusions in the Pentagon report I discussed in the prior post. He claims we can just shuffle folks around and solve any shortfall problems. Uh huh.

article from CNN.com

It's interesting actually, this AP article has much more detail from the Pentagon report, including info about divorce rates among troops (rising), attrition at the officer level (rising), and reserve troop levels (falling).

This is not good folks. Sooner or later Rummy's shuffling will have run its course and we'll need to reinstate the draft. This paragraph paints a pretty alarming picture, no?:

"The Army fell short of its recruiting goals in 2005 despite boosting recruiting efforts, doubling enlistment bonuses, increasing the top age for recruits and accepting a higher number of college dropouts."

The "thin green line" gets thinner - guess what comes next??

2006-01-24T15:44:00.000-08:00

Oh man, check out this AP story:

article on Yahoo News

Here are some choice tidbits:

"Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon. . .

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.

As evidence, Krepinevich points to the Army's 2005 recruiting slump — missing its recruiting goal for the first time since 1999 — and its decision to offer much bigger enlistment bonuses and other incentives.

He wrote that the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk `breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment."

_______

OK everyone - the writing is on the wall. Don't say I didn't warn you. Get ready to go fight for your country.

Now we're resorting to buying people into service!

2006-01-19T05:29:00.000-08:00

And that's not all. I had to read this article twice to make sure I wasn't dreaming. But yes, it's true - army recruits will now get larger signing bonuses than Wall Street analysts coming out of college! Why? Because the Army has no choice. After missing their recruiting targets (again) they're taking another tactic: competitive pay. They're also dramatically raising the maximum age for new recruits from 35 to 42. 42?!? I know some 42 year olds. Not sure I want them on the front line.

article from Sign On San Diego

"After falling well short of its recruiting goals last year, the Army has set even higher monthly targets for this summer, hoping that new financial incentives will attract high school and college graduates in the face of mounting deaths in Iraq. . . A new law will allow the Army to give larger financial bonuses for enlistments and re-enlistments – doubling the maximum payment to new active duty recruits from $20,000 to $40,000, and from $10,000 to $20,000 for reservists. It also will let older recruits sign on by raising the top age from 35 to 42. And the top re-enlistment bonus for active duty soldiers would increase from $60,000 to $90,000."

Oh man. Well now we've seen it all - dumb people (see the prior post), old people, and "bribes" to fill the ranks. What's next? Uh....

Oh my . . .

2006-01-14T05:00:00.000-08:00

Check out this story in Slate about the Army having to basically recruit dummies to fill the ranks:

article from Slate

Here's some salient info:
"...Faced with repeated failures to meet its recruitment targets, the Army has had to lower its standards dramatically. First it relaxed restrictions against high-school drop-outs. Then it started letting in more applicants who score in the lowest third on the armed forces aptitude test—a group, known as Category IV recruits, who have been kept to exceedingly small numbers, as a matter of firm policy, for the past 20 years. (There is also a Category V—those who score in the lowest 10^th percentile. They have always been ineligible for service in the armed forces and, presumably, always will be.)
...
Then again, viewed from another angle, this would double the Army's least desirable soldiers. These are the soldiers that the Army has long shut out of its ranks; that it is now recruiting avidly, out of sheer desperation; and that—according to the military's own studies—seriously degrade the competence of every unit they end up joining. No, things haven't gone to hell in a handbasket, but they're headed in that direction. Every Army officer knows this. And that's why many of them want the United States to get out of Iraq."

I'm telling you guys - once all the dummies have been recruited, they're coming after the rest of us in a draft - they'll have no choice. . .

Promotional Poster for the War

2005-12-17T11:12:00.000-08:00

The writing is on the wall . . .

2005-11-28T06:49:00.000-08:00

From the NY Times on Monday, November 28, 2005, in an article discussing the debate over withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq:

"On one hand, senior officers are painfully aware that sustaining the current high level of troop deployments in Iraq risks undermining morale of those now in uniform - and already has poisoned the efforts of Army recruiters seeking to woo young Americans into military service."

See what I mean? More and more, in the mainstream press, we see and hear greater acknowledgement of the notion of reinstating the draft. It's only a matter of time

The kick off

2005-11-04T06:15:00.000-08:00

You know there's been a lot of debate and speculation about the draft coming back. A google search on 'military draft' yields 24 million hits! But I think the best thing to do to get this going is to go to the source: the Selective Service System (http://www.sss.gov). Check out this article:

artice from Seattle P.I.

The article reveals that not only has the SSS proposed including women in the draft, but they've also proposed raising the draft age from 25 to 34!!!! The reasons cited here and elsewhere are the same: math. Numbers. Remember - everyone serving today volunteered. Yet every day we see more and more stories about armed forces recruiters missing their targets. Some even use shady means of getting the down trodden to enlist.

The writing is on the wall - it's only a matter of time before they have no choice.

Rumsfeld is quoted as saying "I don't know anyone in the executive branch of the government who believes that it would be appropriate or necessary to reinstitute the draft" but COME ON - do you believe this guy? Do we have any reason - at all - to take him at his word?