Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

More evidence that a draft is coming if Bush wins

Mar 14, 2004 2:02AM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Do I smell panic here....
Mar 14, 2004 5:23AM PST

Do I smell panic here? A "Bush will reinstitute the draft" charge sounds like it to me.
But the real sign of panic is the Monday MSNBC Hardball program that they are promoing. Roughly, bringing up Nixon's dislike of Kerry. When they panic, the Democrats tend to scream "Nixon".
It's even on Kerry's web site. What "brilliant" Democratic strategist came up with that one? Brilliant, that should make sure that everybody is publically presented with Kerry's Hanoi John actions. Not only will it inform the veterans who weren't aware of it, but also the great mass of citizens who have not heard of it. I'm curious to know the reaction of my elderly mother, who I'm sure has never heard about it.
Dave, is Bill Clinton "helping" your party with strategy again? Sounds like it.

- Collapse -
Nah, Just more of Dave's smear campaign
Mar 14, 2004 6:20AM PST
- Collapse -
Re:Do I smell panic here....
Mar 14, 2004 7:21AM PST

Hi, J.

No panic, siomple fact. I've been saying it for months, but now there's proof in that they're dusting off the infrastructure. The re-enlistment rate for National Guardsmen who've served in Iraq is reportedly plummeting (not surprisingly). Our current force structure has about 1/3 of a fully mobilized armed forces represented by Guardsmen and reservists; a large decrease in the re-enlistment rate would be a major problem, and unless the volunteer rate increases (there's been no evdence of that after Bush's aircraft carrier announcement) pretty mnuch leaves reinstatement of the draft as the only option.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
If you've been saying it for 'months', I sure have missed it. How did that happen?
Mar 14, 2004 10:12AM PST

Don't worry Dave, you're too old to be drafted now.

- Collapse -
Re: If you've been saying it for 'months', I sure have missed it -- here you go!
Mar 14, 2004 12:02PM PST
- Collapse -
Well, I must admit you said it, although in the last sentence of a long
Mar 14, 2004 12:18PM PST

and torturous post. I guess I usually don't make it that far with your posts Dave.

- Collapse -
So I guess that means you answered your own question....
Mar 14, 2004 11:15PM PST

....when you asked "How did that happen?"

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Do I smell panic here....
Apr 20, 2004 5:55AM PDT
The re-enlistment rate for National Guardsmen who've served in Iraq is reportedly plummeting (not surprisingly).

This I don't find surprising, in fact, I sort of expected it with Afganistan, and then especially with Iraq.

It's not necessarily just because we're in Iraq and a battle zone. Although I suspect there are a fair number had never planned to be in a firefight while in reserves or National Guard, even though they were told they might.

My view was that many didn't object particularly to the first Iraq callout, they probably didn't object a lot to Afganistan but grouse some over it. And now the Iraq troubles are causing extensions of active time in a conflict area.

I expected it because I believe most in the National Guard will find it too much to be called up repeatedly for combat (vs local community aid) service. Once or twice for major combat in their 20 years would have been the most any of them expected. Three times in 15 years is too much for them to figure on how to keep things right back home while fulfilling the obligations of reserve/guard duty.

And it's necessary as much because of the downsizing of the American military after the end of the cold war as to the current conflicts in Afganistan and Iraq. NO MATTER even if we should or shouldn't be there. If our military can't handle this situation, it's because after the USSR fell we all patted ourselves on the back, convinced no one else would ever be major threat to us again.

We were complacent and ignorant of history. Someone is always trying to destory the leaders. "King of the hill" symdrome is as historical with cultures and nations as it is a game with kids.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
- Collapse -
In that case we were right.
Apr 20, 2004 6:44AM PDT

There was no major threat to us.

Dan

- Collapse -
I have no idea how your reply applies to the ongoing discussion
Apr 20, 2004 8:23AM PDT

What are you saying?

Who was "we were right"?

And what "no major threat to us"?

And how do either apply to the idea that many are willing to serve when extraordinary circumstance call for it, but are not ready to be a substitute for the military force we should be maintaining anyway?

I really don't understand how your reply applies to my views on how reservists and/or guard members may be influenced not to re-enlist because it's become too much life commmitment to answer duty calls for what should be handled by the standing military versus true unusual circumstances necessitating supplements to our at ready defense forces.

Sorry, but your reply seems totally left field (maybe foul line) to me.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
Re:I have no idea how your reply applies to the ongoing discussion
Apr 20, 2004 11:59PM PDT
If our military can't handle this situation, it's because after the USSR fell we all patted ourselves on the back, convinced no one else would ever be major threat to us again.

We were right, Iraq was not a major threat to us. Our military is in this situation without sufficient reason, which is why we're pretty much going it alone except for limited support. If there had been a real threat there would have been real support for combating it.

My earlier post was done with a one foot out the door. Sorry for the lack of context.

Dan
- Collapse -
Re:Re:I have no idea how your reply applies to the ongoing discussion
Apr 21, 2004 9:56AM PDT

You reply with an opinion about the Iraq conflict, but it does clear up what you meant mostly. Or at least I think it does.

However, if we can't handle the current situation, evn if you feel we shouldn't be there, it's because of our complacent smug surety that having whipped the buggerbear of communism we'd never face another thread.

As I said, King of the Hill is historically just as much a game of nations as it is a game of kids. Someone is always looking to knock off the "top guy".

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
Complacent?
Apr 21, 2004 10:49PM PDT

We didn't become complacent. We changed our policy in response to a changing world. Bush's current misguided adventure in Iraq didn't fit into the 'threats' we were prepared for because it wasn't a threat. The problem here is not that we didn't retain enough defense resources. The problem here is that bush is trying to conquer a country that was not a threat.

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:Complacent? Yes Complacent,
Apr 22, 2004 6:25AM PDT

After bankrupting the USSR during the arms race, and then the total collapse of the 'evil empire', we thought there was nothing that could threaten us. That ignored China too, but everyone thought that would be diplomatically handled. So far so good there.

But we were complacent. Yes, I can see what you mean about a changing world. Heck, I didn't expect to need another military war with ground troops either. And as we've gone higher and higher tech and more explosive power with each generation of missle and bomb, I think we thought no one would have to root out the opposition on foot if we ever did go to war again.

We were complacent and smug. We were sure that having pushed everyone else off top of the dirt pile, no one would dare throw rocks at us.

Yes, I know you think we should not be in Iraq, but we should have the military ability to handle as much conflict as we face right now without overdepending on reservest for maintaining day to day operations.

JMO of course, but there it is.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
Are you saying
Apr 22, 2004 6:48AM PDT

Are you saying that we should be prepared for any contingency whatsoever? That would be prohibitively expensive, to say the least.

There was no preparation for a war with Iraq because Iraq did not stand as a threat to the US. Bush's conquest of Iraq was not prepared for because no one expected such a needless adventure by a reckless CIC.

China was never a possibility for all out engagement because their size and economics makes conventional warfare with them way beyond remote.

N. Korea is not a possibility for conventional warfare because they hold Seoul hostage and would destroy it before we could stop them.

Dan

- Collapse -
Re:Are you saying
Apr 22, 2004 8:45AM PDT

I'm simply saying we should have the military capability to handle the current situation.

Yes, it's understandable it wasn't thought such on the ground forces wouldn't be needed again.

And forget the argument about we're only stretched thin because of a mistake in invading Iraq. I'm saying we should have the capacity to handle what we're in now.

Of course you can't be prepared for any contingency. I'm saying after the fall of the 'evil empire' of the USSR, we felt everything would be minor, and not a threat to us. We saw the military foot soldier as anachronism in modern warfare and an excellent no pain way to reduce the budget.

Well, the pain is here with interest. Even if Iraq was wrong, and we both know we disagree on most of that, it still proves we've undervalued our military. An idle military isn't necessarily bad, even while conceding some countries have ruin themselves with too much of a standing army.

However, ofter there were more "gentlemen officiers" that were fighting men in some older armies, worthless when the real fighting started. We need a trained, ready military, that is made aware continuously they are there if case they are needed to FIGHT, not just disaster relief. And that is what many National Guard troops expect to be called out to do, even if they accepted the duty of any service needed.

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
Let's see now...
Mar 14, 2004 6:28AM PST

Draft registration has been required for quite some time and required for a reason--it is called PLANNING for contingencies.

If an active draft is re-instituted it is being headed up by a couple of Democrats--Charlie Rangel and Fritz Hollings.

Sounds a lot like sheer desperation on your part Dave.

- Collapse -
More evidence? I didn't know there was ANY evidence.
Mar 14, 2004 10:09AM PST

Is this more of the trilateral commission?

- Collapse -
Re:More evidence? I didn't know there was ANY evidence -- just found more...
Mar 19, 2004 9:25AM PST
- Collapse -
Re:Re:More evidence? I didn't know there was ANY evidence -- just found more...
Mar 19, 2004 10:02AM PST
"It reflects the fact that the military is too small, which nobody wants to admit," said Charles Moskos of Northwestern University, a leading military sociologist.

Something that happened after the cold war collapse, too many ready to write the troops off as an unnessary expense. Not that most didn't feel that way, but this shows it went too far I think.

By prohibiting soldiers and officers from leaving the service at retirement or the expiration of their contracts, military leaders have breached the Army's manpower limit of 480,000 troops, a ceiling set by Congress.

Which now isn't enough. I realize you don't think we should be in Iraq at all, but still it says a lot about the inadequecy of our current military troop strength if we can't maintain two fields of major operation at once.

Lt. Col. Karl Reed, told the Army Times he could have lost a quarter of his unit in the coming year had it not been for the stop-loss order.

Can you imagine trying to run operations under the conditions in Iraq or Afganistan with 25% newbies coming in at once?

RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
- Collapse -
Re: More evidence? I didn't know there was ANY evidence -- just found more...
Mar 19, 2004 10:38AM PST

Hi, Roger.

Let me tell you what I was looking for when I found that -- on the Today Show this morning, one of the talking heads (Tim Russert?) cited an Army Times poll in which 80 percent of soldiers polled said that our military is "spread too thin." Why is that? (This is now my view, not that in the poll, AFAIK). It's because Bush got us bogged down in an Iraqi invasion that wasn't necessary and did little if anything to help the war on terrorism. The invasion weakened us in three major ways -- spread our forces too thin, cost $160 billion so far (thus weakening us economically; the dollar is off more than 20% against the Euro since Bush started beating the war drums), and caused a deep split with our allies, further deepened by Bush's "our way or the highway" attitude. Gearup's linked article (Paul Krugman: Taken for a ride by Bush, while not having anything to do with whether the born-again are always right, makes these points far more eloquently than do I!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re:More evidence? part 2
Mar 19, 2004 10:03AM PST
The military's interest in halting the depletion of its ranks predates the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. American GIs in World War II were under orders to serve until the fighting was finished, plus six months. Congress approved the authority for what became known as stop-loss orders after the Vietnam War, responding to concerns that the military had been hamstrung by the out-rotations of seasoned combat soldiers in Indochina. A flurry of stop-loss orders was issued after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001...

Yes, it's the notorious fine print, just like your and my insurance policies, warrenties exclusion, EULA's, etc ad infinium.

I think it proves that there was a decision made to depend too much on the reserves and the National Guard for military strenght. The dependance on them should reflect something like the troop strengh needed in the World War conflicts. Granted with Afganistan and Iraq, we have more troops afield than in a long time. I'm personally not sure of the comparison to the numbers at the height of the Vietnam War. But at the moment, we don't know how long they will be needed.

I've been expecting that after the second major call out in a couple of decades (first and second Iraq) that many reservists and National Guard members would refuse to re-enlist when they got out.


RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
- Collapse -
Re: More evidence? part 2
Mar 19, 2004 12:00PM PST

Hi, Roger.

If you read Ian's link about the National Guard, it mentioned that for political reasons (mainly the number of well-connected scions there) the Guard was never called up for VietNam, but partially because of the criticism of that practice (which nonetheless kept hawks like Bush and Quayle safe) it was decided soon after that the Guard should be a part of the main force in future emergencies.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re:More evidence? part 3
Mar 19, 2004 10:04AM PST

I wish the stop orders weren't necessarily. But it's the past view we'd never have to fight on the ground with large troops again that caused this nightmare. If the war on terrorism hadn't occured and shown us the problem, we might not have known until something even bigger happened and we were in even worse shape.

So I would be careful trying to lay all the blame all on Bush and his administration. Many people on both sides and general public opinion for the last 2 decades bears the responsibility for inadequate preparation to defend outselves.


RogerNC

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
Re: More evidence? part 3
Mar 19, 2004 12:03PM PST

Hi, Roger.

I wasn't trying to blame Bush and co for the stop orders, but he's certainly responsible for the Iraqi invasion that made them necessary, so I can and do blame him for that.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Did not Kerry say, Dave...
Mar 19, 2004 1:58PM PST

Dave, did not Kerry say that he would increase the Army's strength by 40,000 troops? Then you create a if Bush wins, he would reinstitute the draft political "scare tactic". Not your best work, Dave.

- Collapse -
Re: "scare tactic?"
Mar 20, 2004 2:01AM PST

Hi, J.

I cited evidence that the draft machinery is in fact being ramped up for possible operability. How is that a "scare tactic?" And I suspect that recruiting under president kerry would be easier than under president Bush as I have no doubt Kerry would immediately repudiate the "Bush doctrine" of "preemptive wars," which would presumably ease the minds of both portential recruits and Gurdsmen/reservists deciding whether to re-up.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Nonsense, Dave...
Mar 20, 2004 3:41AM PST

Dave, scare tactic I said, and scare tactic I meant. You specifically used the name of Bush in your slug.
Did not Kerry say that he would increase by 40,000 troops the "active duty" strength of the Army?
Why all the "smoke and mirrors" about Gardsmen/reservists re-uping? Are you saying that if Kerry gets in, to keep his pre-election promise he will activate 40,000 more reservists and/or Guardsmen to active duty in the Army?

- Collapse -
If true, would a draft be an inherently bad thing?
Mar 14, 2004 11:01AM PST

I have mixed feelings about the subject. In the first place, I am not convinced that there is a plan to actually resume the military draft. Contingency planning is always appropriate. But even if there were a plan to actually implement a draft system, would that necessarily be a bad thing? I admit that I did not want to be drafted, and I was lucky that the Vietnam War was winding down when I graduated high school (1973). OTOH there is something to be said for expecting young people to contribute to society.

I'm told that there are a number of countries that require service of some kind as part of the national 'social contract'. Perhaps some of our members who have more knowledge than I do could comment on how compulsory service has affected Swiss nationals or (IIRC) Israeli nationals or those from other countries that have a similar requirement?

- Collapse -
The thing that always bothers me about discussions on the draft....
Mar 14, 2004 11:17PM PST

....is that the decision to institute one would be made by people who are too old to have to worry about it. Maybe if we make it a requirement that only Senators/Congressmen with draft-age children can vote on it......