Moving this from IMHO to Great Debates.
“Stop loss” orders were issued before GW I, so it’s not like they are anything unusual in the history of the US military.
A draft is highly unlikely to happen next year, no matter who wins the election. Draftees will have to be trained (bootcamp generally takes eight weeks) after they’ve gone through a rigorous selection process, and the government’s spent a great deal of time alerting everyone that a draft is coming and all males from 18-27 (most likely age group) will need to report to their induction station if they’re called up.
Given how unpopular the thought of a draft is, the President who calls for it will not only be making himself a target of assassination like we’ve never seen, but he’ll also be slitting the throat of his entire party.
Additionally, a Kerry victory does not mean that UN forces will be flowing into Iraq on Jan. 22nd. It will take a long time for the first post-Bush President to smooth the ruffled feathers, and getting people to agree to send their troops into the cluster that is Iraq, is going to be very difficult. Then you’ll have to deal with the normal delay of mobilizing forces, getting them into the area, and establishing C-N-C. This will take probably about as long as it would, if not longer, to reinstate the draft.
Strewth, this is like pulling teeth.
Always with the “stop loss”!
Prior to my OP, I have never** heard** about this “stop loss” shit. “Stop fuckin’ loss” has bugger all to do with my OP, fer chirstsakes.
If
Thanks. I wasn’t sure WHERE it should go.
And show me where I said you were the one who brought up “stop loss” orders. Also, show me where I failed to discuss the points raised in your OP.
That’s more troops than the ten smallest contributors to the coalition have in Iraq, combined, almost as many as our staunch ally, Romania. It shows real disrespect for our coalition partners when you minimize them like that. Why if those 650 troops represented a country by themselves, they’d be the coalition’s 8th largest non-US contributor.
I agree with legion that the attempt to place such a large British force under US command is disturbing. If we’re asking for that, then it’s obvious that 1) we don’t have enough troops to do the job ourselves, and 2) the Iraqi’s own military is not yet up to the job of serious fighting. If that trend continues, we’re going to have to get more US soldiers over there, and a draft is one way to generate larger armed forces.
The fact that the Republican National Committee sent out a cease and desist letter (small pdf) in an attempt to stop Rock the Vote from mentioning the possibility of a draft suggests that there may be a bit of fire behind the Bush administration’s manpower shortfall smokescreen.
You gotta love that letter:
Okay, I inserted that last quote into the letter…What Rummy actually said was related to the draft. But, you get my point, I hope. They may well be telling the truth but, hey, when they’ve got no credibility left they can’t really complain when they say things like this and people still don’t believe them.
I can’t show you XXX, cause you didn’t say XXX. :smack:
650 troops is really not that much, when you consider that the US used over 100,000 soldiers to invade Iraq. This is an Administration which has been unable to admit that it was wrong about anything: They weren’t wrong to ignore the warnings about Osama Bin Laden, they weren’t wrong about WMD in Iraq, they weren’t wrong about the number of forces needed to invade Iraq, etc., etc. So to think that for a moment that they’re going to start a draft up, just so that they can keep Iraq from going to hell in a handbasket is a bit silly. No doubt Bush and Co. would rather let every Iraqi, and every US soldier die, than to admit that they only way order will be restored in Iraq is by bringing in more troops. A draft is going to force them to admit that they were wrong, and there’s simply no way that’s going to happen.
The sight of Osama bin Laden marching down Pennsylvania avenue to be crowned King of the World, on the white house lawn in front of hundreds of thousands of wildly cheering Americans wouldn’t be enough to get these guys to admit they were wrong about anything. A little thing like a draft wouldn’t even spoil their sunday tea.
Did you see Bush’s address to the UN General Assembly? Was it the least bit concillatory? No. Did he come out and say, “We screwed up big time.”? No. Did he apologize? Nope.
All he did was spew a bunch of thinly vieled crap, and hinted that US would be open to accepting help from the UN on the US’s terms. Bush is more likely to bribe some corrupt leader to send his troops to Iraq than he is to call for a draft. A draft means the end of the Republican party, and even Bush isn’t so stupid as to not realize that.
You do understand that Congress makes this decision? Last week the House of Representatives shot down a bill that would have reinstated the draft, by a vote of 402-2.
… Which does not prevent Bush (if re-elected) to propose a draft if conditions deteriorate rapidly in Iraq and elsewhere at the same time.
The OP seems to think if the US can’t go it alone, we’re going to start drafting. My point is the US never intended to go it alone, and asking our allies to help doesn’t mean we’re necessarily overextended & about to reinstate the draft.
We might be overextended, but coordinating our actions with our Brit allies doesn’t by itself imply that.
And outside of another 9/11 style attack, even someone as dense as Bush has to realize that it’d be political suicide to call for a draft. Even with a 9/11-style attack, the GOPs going to have one helluva time saving their asses, since the first thing that the Dems are going to do (and if they don’t they should be shot for not doing it) is shout, “If we hadn’t mucked about in Iraq, we wouldn’t be having these problems right now!” Adding a military draft to the mix is going to be like locking John Wilkes Booth in a theater with Lincoln.
So what is Bush’s plan to address the manpower shortfall? Will it be as poorly thought out as his plan for post-conquest rebuilding of Iraq? Is there any reason to believe that the administration will be less reactionary and ham-handed dealing with troop shortfalls than they are in dealing with other important issues?
No doubt they’ll continue to claim that there isn’t a shortfall.
I’d say you could pretty much bet the farm on that one.
For the most part, yes, but they’re not so incredibly stupid as to call for a draft. I can, however, see them trying to pitch a plan where student loans can be erased by a short stint in the military.
No, it does not. Why would you draw that conclusion? An unstable Iraq threatens the peace around the world, and Kerry recognizes the US is bearing an unfair burden of responsibility in Iraq. Using diplomatic means to convince France and Germany to shoulder their fair share of this burden is the leadership we need to avoid the draft, not hasten its arrival. Bush’s inability to build a coalition that can accept more than 10% of the responsibility for troop levels increases the likelihood of a draft here in the USA.
For an instant, lets pretend this fantasy draft meme is real. Does anyone here have any idea how long it would take to get troops into the pipeline if they started the drafe in, say, late Novemeber (after the election of course, the evil bastards)?? I seriously doubt we’d be able to have troops in Iraq before 2006…and it wouldn’t exactly be an effective force.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again…THERE WILL BE NO DRAFT. The draft fears are coming from the Democrats who are trying to inspire fears in clueless voters (mostly young ones) to vote against Bush because of they fear they will be drafted.
-XT
I doubt the Republicans would institute the draft, as it would surely lead to their loss of control of the House, the Senate, and the White House in 2008. Disastersville, bay-bee and they like power WAAAAAY too much for that.
Now, if they’re thinking about suspending elections in 2008, all bets are off. And I know it’s getting into tinfoil hat territory, but I remember the 2000 election all too well.