| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Talk of Reinstating the Draft in US Senate | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 21 2004, 08:47 AM (907 Views) | |
| gvok | Apr 21 2004, 08:47 AM Post #1 |
|
Unregistered
|
I just saw this on Drudge (see article below). How likely is this? Does the military keep the volunteers seperate from the non volunteers? Senator says US may need compulsory service to boost Iraq force Tue Apr 20,12:34 PM ET Add Politics - AFP to My Yahoo! WASHINGTON (AFP) - A senior Republican lawmaker said that deteriorating security in Iraq (news - web sites) may force the United States to reintroduce the military draft. "There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq. "Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face." The Nebraska Republican added that a draft, which was ended in the early 1970s, would spread the burden of military service in Iraq more equitably among various social strata. "Those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and lower middle class," he observed. The call to consider a imposing a draft comes just days after the Pentagon (news - web sites) moved to extend the missions of some 20,000 of the 135,000 US troops in Iraq. Some critics of the US-led occupation complain that military planners used too few troops to subdue Iraq, and insist that more military muscle will be needed to restore order. The US-led military coalition was put under further strain by the announcement this week by coalition members Spain and Honduras that they would withdraw their military contingents from Iraq. Meanwhile, witnesses at the hearing, including academics and former US officials, expressed concern about ongoing flareups of violence in Iraq this month -- the bloodiest yet for US troops. "I think it's clear that pressures in Iraq have reached the boiling point," said Samuel Berger, national security adviser during the Bill Clinton (news - web sites) administration, who called for an increase in troops there, and a "genuine, non-grudging effort to internationalize the enterprise in Iraq, both military and civilian." "We've got to be prepared to give up our hammerlock on decision making in exchange for genuine burden sharing." Richard Perle, a former White House adviser who currently serves as a fellow at a conservative think tank, advised against adding troops or extending the date of handover of Iraqi sovereignty beyond the currently-set June 30 date. "It is essential that we not delay the handover of sovereignty set for the end of June, even if there is continuing violence by those who know they have no place in a decent, democratic Iraq," he said. Perle also warned against entrusting the United Nations (news - web sites) with the post-occupation administration of Iraq, saying UN involvement should be kept at "an absolute minimum." "A large UN contingent in Iraq ... would do more harm than good," Perle said. "It would discourage the assumption of sovereignty by Iraqis themselves. It would drain resources urgently needed for the development of Iraq's economy," Perle said. A senior Democrat meanwhile, lashed out at the White House for failing to send a top administration official to appear before the panel. "I think it is outrageous that the administration has not provided every witness we've asked for," said Senator Joseph Biden, the highest-ranking Democrat on the committee. "The fact that they are not prepared to send a witness means that they are either totally incompetent and they don't have anything to tell us ... or they're refusing to allow us to fulfill our constitutional responsibility" of congressional oversight, Biden said. The committee's Republican chairman, Richard Lugar, also slammed the White House for "inadequate planning and communication related to Iraq." |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| fireh8er | Apr 21 2004, 12:05 PM Post #2 |
|
I'm Captain Kirk!
|
I knew that was coming up soon! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Apr 21 2004, 12:41 PM Post #3 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
Yay!!!
I can't wait to be pulled away from my professional position, have my financial future put in jeopardy after just putting a down payment on a house, and hang out with a nation of terrorists in a god forsaken desert and hopefully come back to the States alive and with all my limbs after being forced into a service I never volunteered for!!! I love you GWB!!! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Apr 21 2004, 12:47 PM Post #4 |
|
Unregistered
|
Taken from the Selective Service Website: SELECTIVE SERVICE LOTTERY Printer Friendly Version If and when the Congress and the President reinstate a military draft, the Selective Service System would conduct a National Draft Lottery to determine the order in which young men would be drafted. The lottery would establish the priority of call based on the birth dates of registrants. The first men drafted would be those turning age 20 during the calendar year of the lottery. For example, if a draft were held in 1998, those men born in 1978 would be considered first. If a young man turns 21 in the year of the draft, he would be in the second priority, in turning 22 he would be in the third priority, and so forth until the year in which he turns 26 at which time he is over the age of liability. Younger men would not be called in that year until men in the 20-25 age group are called. Because of the enormous impact of this lottery, it would be conducted publicly, with full coverage by the media. Accredited observers from public interest groups will have full access to observe the proceedings. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| fireh8er | Apr 21 2004, 01:14 PM Post #5 |
|
I'm Captain Kirk!
|
A hitch in the military would do some of those saggy pants wearing youngsters some good. Nothing wrong with a little discipline! Some of them need someone to get in their face and sweat them.![]() "Get on your knees, Scumbag!
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Apr 21 2004, 01:32 PM Post #6 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
There is always talk of reinstating the draft by someone in Congress. It will never pass. The only situation that would facilitate a reinstatement of the draft would be if we (the US) became embroiled in a war similar to WWII and Vietnam (where casualties were high). Currently, the situation in Iraq is entirely different (casualties are extremely low in comparison to past wars). However, if the situation worsens over the next year or two (no exit strategy and casualties increase), then I could see the draft becoming more of a possibility (still an unlikely possibility IMO though). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Apr 21 2004, 01:38 PM Post #7 |
|
Unregistered
|
Unlikely, but if you asked me in 2000 how likely it would be for the US to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq in the next few years I'd probably say that would be unlikely as well. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Dr. Noah | Apr 21 2004, 02:33 PM Post #8 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
Yeah, if you told me in 2000 that one Supreme Court Justice would be the deciding factor on who would be the next president I would've thought you were crazy. It's a mad world. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Apr 21 2004, 02:42 PM Post #9 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Sisko, your razor sharp wit escapes all but the most enlightened. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 21 2004, 02:48 PM Post #10 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
24 is right, there is talk of reinstating the draft nearly EVERY TIME CONGRESS MEETS. I noticed that this article never mentioned the actual SOURCE for talk on reinstating the draft, Representative Charlie "The Red" Rangel, D-NY. As for Chuck Hagel, he is simply echoing what "Chollie" said yesterday, about those going into the military being minorities. What tripe. Here's why you WON'T SEE a draft. We have an all-volunteer, professional force. It is the best military in the world, bar none. We are meeting recruiting AND re-enlistment goals (on average for re-enlistment). There is no need for a bunch of conscripts to join against their will. By the way, Sisko... you're a bit old. Unless you were born in 1986, and starting back from there, you won't be called up. Ever. Hell, I stand a better chance at being re-called, even though I'm fifteen years older, have a medical discharge, and have been out for five years. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Apr 21 2004, 06:27 PM Post #11 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
As has been pointed out already, this is the second time the "idea" has been brought up. The only way a draft is ever going to happen is if people suddenly stop enlisting voluntarily. So far that is not happening. I don't know the current numbers on enlistments, but after 2001 they shot up perceptibly. While polls may indicate that people are concerned about how this fight is going, they also show that people are dedicatd to staying the course. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 21 2004, 06:31 PM Post #12 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Here's an interesting little tidbit I just heard: John Kerry's website called for mandatory government service until last week. Now it is gone. "As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students and four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of national service." This is what his website said until April 13th. It WAS found at www.johnkerry.com/issues/natservice It is now different. Also, remember just four weeks ago when Kerry said he'd create Ten Million new jobs: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4609878/ His website now says, "Creates 500,000 New Jobs Over the Next Decade and Provides Assistance to Assure American Industries Will Lead the New Energy Economy. " (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/100days/ <--- scroll down halfway) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Apr 21 2004, 06:34 PM Post #13 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
^^^ Wasn't that part of his the government pays for your college education if you commit 2 years plan? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Apr 21 2004, 06:54 PM Post #14 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Didn't the Soviet Union have two years of mandatory service? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 21 2004, 07:05 PM Post #15 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
They had conscription, but for how long is a mystery. Israel did and still does have mandatory service. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |




2:11 PM Jul 11