starting the draft

[Zagadka]

@Lemur866

Zagadka, what are you talking about? I am expecting an apology for your insinuation of racism. Who brought up Harlem? In what context could my use of the phrase “you people” be thought to refer to blacks? Please apologize and retract your statement, or provide some evidence that I am, in fact, a racist.

I don’t think you are racist, but I think your choice of words was poor.

And you’re not understanding what I mean when I say “military readiness”. I mean military readiness to wage war. Let’s say you’re right, and Bush is even now masturbating over plans to invade North Korea next year after he steals the election. The only question is: how to pull it off? Would reinstating the draft make the invasion easier, or more difficult?

Considering that we have most of our military deployed in Iraq (and to a lesser extend, Afghanistan) and in their bases around the world, and we’d only be able to send one division to Korea, I think it would be easier to, you know, actually have soldiers to send.

Look at how easily our regular troops defeated Saddam Hussein’s conscript army.

You mean the army that didn’t put up a fight?

Resentful confused conscripts won’t do much except fill a foxhole and provide a target. Grabbing high-school seniors, shoving a rifle into their hands, and sending them to the front lines is no longer an effective method of waging war.

Not in America’s army, no.

How would an invasion of North Korea be helped by sending more kids with rifles? Every untrained kid needs to be fed, clothed, transported, provided medical care, housed, (minimally) trained, and babysat by sergeants and corporals. It would be simpler to just shoot them stateside and not waste the money and effort to ship them over to Korea to get shot.

Well, considering that our military is used to fighting groups of a few dozen untrained insurgents with AK-47s, going up against a few million soldiers in their home land is an entire different beast. We could sit back and carpetbomb them for 20 years, but we would still need bodies to invade.

The fact is, it is disingenous for you to point to bills in congress introduced by people like Charles Rangel and Jim McDermott, and pretend that means that the country is gearing up to reinstate the draft.

You seem to be misconstruing the point. Those bills were brought up because someone said that even talking about a draft is political suicide - it clearly is not, now is it?

[theR]

@Lemur866

This talk of a draft is nonsense. The only people pushing a draft are those, like Rangel, who hope that a draft would make it much more difficult to authorize use of military force. Rangel doesn’t want a draft to increase the capabilities of the armed forces, he wants a draft so that any time we used the armed forces we’d have legions of protestors.

Not quite right. He is not counting on legions of protestors, he is counting on members of Congress. Advocates of the draft want none of the easy deferments that went on last time it was instituted. The thinking is that you don’t need legions of protestors when those in Congress have children in the armed forces. I don’t know the exact number, but there are only about seven members of Congress with children in the military at the moment. That number would increase a lot if the draft came back and deferments were made difficult.

That said, I don’t know that it would actually make a huge difference in votes for or against military action. I’m pretty sure that some or all of those currently in Congress and having children in the military voted for the invasion of Iraq.

[PatriotX]

@Lemur866

Currently we have troops stationed all over the world. Wouldn’t it make more sense to, say, pull troops out of Germany and send them to Iraq rather than reinstitute the draft?

Honestly, I’m not familiar enough with our world-wide troop needs and assignments to be able to assess this. I haven’t seen a case made on either side, (draft vs reallocation from Germany), actually. Depending on what the facts are, I bet you could make a case for one side or the other.

@Lemur866

The truth is that you people secretly HOPE for a draft, because you know how unpopular a draft would be, and that would doom Bush. But Bush knows how unpopular a draft would be, and therefore won’t institute one.

Pretty fucking crystal clear to me who you’re referring to:
“The… people pushing a draft are those, like Rangel… <snip> The people who… WISH it were true, because then it would demonstrate to the American people just how awful the president is.”

@Lemur866

That would be worse than useless. The draft would destroy our military. There will be no draft.

As that may well be true, it still doesn’t preclude it from happening. It supposes a set of decisions made through rational analysis. I’m not sure that humanses is always sure to do that. Aside from my personal lack of assurance, there’s the element of error- maybe some bodies make some mistakes when they’re figuring out the risks of actions and non-actions.
Motivation’s the mother of rationalization.

Seriously, though, I walked outside w/o a foil yarmulke and I was tetched right in the head by a Big Finger of God asmoting my brain with a message- if GWB gets elected this time around, (2008’s okay), there will be a CRISIS of National Security that will require a draft, for “defensive purposes.” We will be called to “defend the Homeland.”
The serious part is that I hope the Big Finger of God smote my brain with a joke.

[Squink]

Plans for reducing the number of troops in Germany aren’t final yet:

reported the U.S.administration was nearing approval of the plans as part of a global force realignment that may halve the U.S. military presence in Germany. It would also reduce the numbers of troops in Japan and South Korea.
Douglas J. Feith, Pentagon undersecretary for policy, told the Washington Post the changes in troop levels were in no way connected to Germany’s opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

The U.S. is considering lowering the number of soldiers in Germany by half.

[rjung]

Not sure if this has been mentioned already, but it seems like a harbinger:

General Requests More U.S. Troops
In a reversal, Abizaid wants to expand force by 7,000 to 10,000. Iraqi security units, he says, have been a ‘great disappointment.’

…(General John) Abizaid asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the equivalent of two brigades, or 7,000 to 10,000 troops — “if not more.” The request was made less than a week after military officials began extending the one-year tours of an unspecified number of the roughly 20,000 troops who were preparing to leave Iraq.

U.S. officials had hoped to draw the occupation force down to 110,000 this spring as the coalition prepares to transfer authority to a still-unnamed interim Iraqi government on June 30.

Instead, the Pentagon is planning to have as many as 140,000 American troops in Iraq if the new units arrive soon or 120,000 if the soldiers now pulling extended duty are allowed to leave within several months, defense officials said.

…Current and former Army officials have noted that when then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki warned Congress before the war that 225,000 U.S. troops then poised for attack around the Persian Gulf would be needed for years, Pentagon officials called his estimate wildly inaccurate.

“This is what Shinseki was talking about. This is what everybody’s been talking about,” retired Maj. Gen. William Nash said. “The failure to do it right at the beginning means that we’re going to have to do it at the end with a lot of deaths and a lot of trouble and it’s going to be much harder now. The insurgents are building momentum.”

[Duckster]

The lies continue. President George W. Bush boasts of the nation’s all-volunteer armed forces: “We have seen the great advantages of a military in which all serve by their own decision.”

The truth is that as of last month, no fewer than 44,500 American soldiers who had fulfilled their contractual obligations, completed their enlistments and made plans to return to civilian life or retirement were frozen – by an arbitrary “stop-loss” order – on active duty.

A survey by the military’s Mental Health Advisory Team found the suicide rate among GI’s stationed in Iraq to be 35 percent higher than among Army troops wordwide.

We do not have an all-volunteer service today. The reality is that we now have a limited military draft. But the only Americans who are subjected to the current “draft” are those who have already demonstrated their patriotism by volunteering to serve in the military and have then served honorably.

There is a class difference, too, in proudly classless America. All the sacrifice of this war is being borne by the minority of our population who overwhelmingly do not go onto college. While nearly 50 percent of the U.S. adult population has some college, barely six percent of our military recruits have any college.

One of the “advantages” of the all-volunteer military the president chooses not to mention is that under the draft, which was in effect until 1973, fewer than 10 percent of the draftees failed to complete their obligation.

In the vaunted all-volunteer military, more than one out of three of today’s soldiers fails to complete his initial enlistment. Among white male recruits, the failure to complete their enlistment rate is 35 percent, and among white female recruits, it is 55 percent.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/12/iraq.reconsidered/index.html

One can debate the finer points of the above commentary. However, if one has fulfilled their contractural and military obligations, but not allowed to go home, I agree we have a pseudo-draft in place.

Question - Are these “stop-loss” orders legal?

[Ravenman]

@Duckster

Question - Are these “stop-loss” orders legal?

Yes.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during any period members of a reserve component are serving on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty… the President may suspend any provision of law relating to promotion, retirement, or separation applicable to any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.

From 10 USC 12305

[Mr.Moto]

Stop-loss orders are legal. They were put into use in the Gulf War as well.

You may not be aware of this, but I certainly am, being a recent veteran (U.S. Navy). The standard enlistment is not four years. It is eight years.

Four years of that standard enlistment must be served in an active-duty status, according to your enlistment contract. The remainder is served, in peacetime, as a member of the inactive reserve. During wartime, that reserve can be activated to serve on active duty again.

Personnel currently serving past their active duty obligation basically have an extension of their active enlistment. When they are finally released, their obligation to the inactive reserve will be correspondingly shortened. It will still be an eight year total committment.

This is the law for enlisted personnel. Commissioned and warrant officers are covered by different rules.

[aahala]

Something similar to stop loss orders must have occurred during WWII. My late father was pretty bitter over his last year of Navy enlistedman experience. He was in quite a bit before Pearl Harbor, was at Pearl Harbor and was not permitted to leave the service until a year after the Japanese surrender. He knew many who entered the Navy long after he did and got out shortly after the war had ended.

[Mr.Moto]

Just wanted to add that the above information was made very clear to me upon my enlistment by my recruiter. It is also plainly spelled out in the enlistment contract, which every recruit must read before signing.