Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005

I

Ironbarr

New member
I make no warranty re the "message" the following article may contain - its accuracy or fact. I found it interesting and timely and believe we must - at least - be aware of the possibility of a draft. My grandchildren will be affected.

NOTE: The link "nslda" within the text is broken - probably a link to a search requiring key words.

-Andy

From: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congressorg
There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately.

$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS) budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation. Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.

The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.

Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year, http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp entitled the Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently sit in the committee on armed services.

Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.

College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter. Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic year.

Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a
shelter and includes women in the draft.

The public has a right to air their opinions about such an important decision.

Please send this on to all the friends, parents, aunts and uncles, grandparents, and cousins that you know. Let your children know too -- it's their future, and they can be a powerful voice for change!

Please also contact your representatives to ask them why they aren't telling their constituents about these bills -- and contact newspapers and other media outlets to ask them why they're not covering this important story.
Click to expand...
Links to the texts of the two bills, extracted from Thomas.gov, can be found at: http://members.cox.net/ironbarr4/

.
 
I will attempt to avoid any harsh or inciteful rhetoric. I will tell you what we are up against is more than rumors of weapons of mass destruction. There is a radical element in this world that wants to destroy us. They will use any means to do so. We do not have the manpower to field the kind of forces that will be needed to deal with these threats as they occur in random sequence often simultaneously.

Speaking as a Father whose Kids would be affected and as somone who has a family member currently involved in direct interdiction and termination of radical elements in a very hot zone of fire right now, I am in favor of a draft if our military leaders deem it vital to our survival-----with all due respect.
 
LibertyorDeath- you fall under the "smart people" category.





I too worry about my nieces and nephews that are going to be of draft age within the next 5-8yrs.

*sickening story *

I have a very close family friend who's youngest brother signed up for ROTC 5yrs ago. After he graduated from college, he decided that he didn't like the people in the Army, so his mommy spent $78,000 to get him out of going.

I feel sick.
 
Eye opener

I believe that if the draft does nothing else it will show a lot of youngsters that there is a lot of things in this world . The ghetto kids will see more than ever thought possible and have a chance to learn a useful trade . Kids whose families couldn't afford to send them to college will have a chance to go . You will come home with some discipline and a much better chance to contribute to society instead of being a detrement to it . I would pay to see the DI upon seeing a recruit coming to morning formation on the first day with his pants halfway down on his Alpha Sierra Sierra .
 
I wasn't even around for Vietnam, and I seem to remember its lessons with greater acuity than you do. I most certainly do NOT support resumption of the draft, nor do I agree that it would "teach youngsters a trade" or any such BS. We're not talking about a knitting group here, we're talking about sending snot-nosed boys and girls into an unjustified war. Iraq had as much to do with the war on terror as Waco did with the war on drugs. If it was about protecting America then I'd be all for it - liberty comes only at great cost, as I understand it. However, this has *nothing* to do with protecting America except in the most vague and peripheral manner.

Liberty or Death, what "radical element" are you talking about? Al-Qaeda? Islam? I'm unclear on what you're alluding to. We've dealt with powerful enemies before, and gentlemen - the Soviet Union was more dangerous to America than a million Osama bin Ladens ever could be.

You cannot force goodwill toward the US at the end of a gun, it is simply not possible. You cannot beat it into subjugated peoples. You cannot bomb goodwill into existence. What we must do is act to protect our citizens at home and abroad, while reducing the extent of our influence in places where it is unwanted. In doing this, we can ill afford to sacrifice either our freedoms or the next generation of Americans in the process. Fourth-generation warfare is upon us, and the age of conquerors is long past. It is impossible to take over another country anymore, Mao and Guevara saw to that a long time ago. You can hold onto for only as long as you are willing to pay the price in blood that its native peoples will exact. Resuming the draft to pay that toll is more than irresponsible, I submit that it would be criminal.
 
All of the armed forces have clearly and often stated they do not want a draft. The quality of volunteer recruits is too high.

The selective service system is in place simply to shorten the time required to mobilize the country in case of total war.

For a congressman or woman to consider anything other than those two points is just so much political posturing & election year nonsense... Playing on our passions like a monkey on a drum.

Larry
 
Thoughts...

Thanks for the replies thus far.

First, take a look at the sponsors.

Some questions:

Will the pay/benefits structure for draftess duplicate the current levels of volunteer, professionally trained, experienced members? If so, why(?) - considering that two years service is still pretty much neo-tyro status. What effect on the budget/taxes?

Morale? Too much "hand-holding" and the related dangers in combat areas? (Not that this hasn't been necessary - and done before, and even today (but with equal volunteer partners.)

Would these young ones be filling billets in quiet areas as more experienced people are moved into hot spots?

There are many questions to wrestle.

.........
For myself, I've always believed that the service(s) provide an eye-opening experience and a broadening of ones perspective; it did for me, it is doing it for my grandson. Today, I do have some concerns for my 16 - 20 year-old grandsons and grandaughters, knowing them as I do :) - great kids - but very much, still kids.

We'll see as the year moves on, but whether Bush, Kerry, or someone else occupies the "big chair", the SSS is ramping up for what may very well be a necessary event. Judging by the text of these bills, the President is the thrower of the switch.

-Andy
.
 
We ARE in a fight and we need to win, but I suspect that the sponsors of the bills are Democrats trying to create a link between President Bush and a new Draft.

S. 89 is sponsored by Fritz Hollings -- Democrat supporting Kerry:
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S.89:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0122d.html

HR 163 is sponsored by Charles Rangel -- Democrat who does not support Bush:
http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.163:

I've come up with a name for this tactic of introducing a bad idea or bringing up bad imagery that those who don't care to do the research will associate with your opposition: "Guilt by Short Attention Span".
 
I would also add that in the three fiscal years preceeding this one, Charles Rangel consistently voted against ANY funding for Selective Service. It was only as the election year approached that he was seized with a patriotic fervor and proposed a bill reinstating the draft.

I believe this is mostly a scare tactic from the Democrats to scare people away from voting for Bush in 2004. The Pentagon has already come out with a report to Congress explaining that they don't want the draft and that Rangel's bill is a threat instead of a solution.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2003/d20030114avf.pdf

I've attempted to go into left-leaning forums like plastic.com and make this point but my posts were deleted/disappeared into the ether. the first two times I figured it was just a mistake; but after the third time, maybe not.
 
Well, let's see; many in europe, more in the Balkans, N Africa, Iran, Iraq and other mid east countries, Afghanistan, Tajikstan, Uzbekhastan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, parts of southern Russia, part of SW China, Bangladesh, parts of India/Nepal, Burma and other parts of SE Asia, Indonesia, Phillipines. How many muslims? A billion? A billion and a half? More?

Just how big a "draft" is going to "win a war" with every muslim militant in the Balkans, the mid east, asia, and the far east? Someone is being hopeful to understate the matter.

If we threw our current army on our borders, "drafted" to add - then turned out all those that shouldn't be in this country and reviewed those who'd arrived say over the last twenty years - we might conceivably keep trouble at bay. But the idea that we are going to even keep it out of Iraq with an army of one or two hundred thousand is a nonstarter. The idea that we are going to chase it all over the eastern hemisphere is even more ludicrous.
 
You cannot force goodwill toward the US at the end of a gun,
Click to expand...
True enough, but you can sure make people stop and think it's better to be for ya than again ya.

the Soviet Union was more dangerous to America than a million Osama bin Ladens ever could be.
Click to expand...

FWIW, the former Soviet Union never was a threat to the USA. The main reason for that was because the USA had something they wanted. Take a look sometime at the geographic locations of our missle silos. You'll see they were mostly placed in middle America - the crop lands - the "Bread Basket of The World" - as it was once called. The former Soviet Union wanted that, or at the very least, the food it could/would produce. There was simply no way, no how they would risk poisioning the soil by a nuke strike against our silos. A conventional invasion would have been impossible. Really the "Cold War" was mostly nothing but hot air and a good way to avoid a catastophic post WWII depression. As long as we had a "boogie man", we were Ok.

Contrast that with a "million Osamas". Plain and simple, we (the USA) have nothing,,,zip,,,zero,,zilch,, that they "want". That's exactly why one Osama is more dangerous than a million super powers. We have no bargining points with an idealist who simply wants our destruction.
 
Hal...

Across the years I hadn't looked at the past that way... but of late I've come to believe that without "boogie men", as you put it, a lot of folks would be looking for other employment, that many organizations wouldn't exist, nor - probably - some current problems.

It seems that there are many agendas out there in this world... political, economic, military, social and just plain work-a-day. Some of them would be lost without their "boogey man".

-Andy
 
True enough, but you can sure make people stop and think it's better to be for ya than again ya.
Click to expand...

Sure, the weak-willed will be cowed by a display of force. But, contrary to popular belief, the world is *not* populated with weak-willed cowards. Rather, a great deal of people will respond to your show of force in kind, and with escalating levels of aggression. Diplomacy is the art of de-escalating conflict; necessary for this very reason. Take Osama, what did he want? He wanted the US out of Saudi Arabia. The real irony here is that the US is now more or less out of Saudi Arabia, but by now we've escalated the conflict far beyond that original goal.

FWIW, the former Soviet Union never was a threat to the USA. <snip> There was simply no way, no how they would risk poisioning the soil by a nuke strike against our silos.
Click to expand...

Now that is one of the silliest things I've ever heard. I have studied the Cold War pretty well, and I assure you that the "Bread Basket" was simply not relevant in Soviet military planning. You are confusing nuclear war with some kind of territorial-conquest game. The only territory the Soviets were interested in was Europe and East Asia. That is why WWIII was long thought to begin with a massive Soviet tank rush into western Europe. Once things go nuclear, all the stops are pulled. Had the balloon gone up in say, 1962, then I assure you that those silos would have been hammered by ICBM (actually IRBMs in '62) warheads, "Bread Basket" or no. The reason our silos are in the middle of the country is because a) land is cheap and open there, b) it eliminates any thought of a quick invasion being able to secure those nuclear assets (i.e. put them all in Florida and see what happens...).

Your "boogie man" is more relevant now than during the Cold War. A lot of men died in proxy wars fighting your "hot air". Russian pilots fought with American airmen over Korea, for crying out loud. Remember that the first debacle in Afghanistan saw CIA "advisors" in a shooting war with Russian troops. The *entire* population of reunified Germany would probably take issue with your theory as well. Was the threat exaggerated on both sides? Oh yes, it was indeed. Does that mean that a genuine threat did not exist? By no means.

Osama bin Laden isn't going to make tens of millions of Americans disappear in seconds, subjecting the remainder to untold hardship and suffering from starvation and radiation-induced sickness. What he did do was pretty devastating, I think we can all agree. But it certainly doesn't compare to what could have happened had we gone to war with the Soviet Union. Not by a long shot.
 
for the record

I've gotten way off topic here, and for that I apologize. The democrats who sponsored these bills certainly seem to have done so for political reasons rather than practical ones, but the goals listed on the SSS webpage for FY2004 certainly seem to support the notion of a reactivated selective service system. In addition, more evidence regarding the draft board and appeals board positions would help to support/disprove the idea that the goverment is seriously considering resumption of the draft, but I haven't found it yet.
 
*I wasn't even around for Vietnam*

Says it all my young friend. I'm glad you studied the cold war in depth.
OTOH, I was around during both the cold war and Vietnam and lived those times. I bet you've never even heard of,, let alone seen a radio dial with the 2 triangles on it. ;)

*I assure you that the "Bread Basket" was simply not relevant in Soviet military planning*

Please, read this book The Harvest of Sorrow. by Robert Conquest. It's the story of Stalin's elimination of a mind blowing between 5 ~ 14 million Ukranians via starvation,,,,then please, reconsider,, how food was "simply not relevant" in Soviet military planning. At the very least, bone up on the subject. While you're at it, take a look at how Saddam did largly the same thing to the "Marsh Arabs". Food and/or lack of food is a devestating weapon of mass destruction. It always has been, from the days of seige warfare right through modern times.

*You cannot force goodwill toward the US at the end of a gun, it is simply not possible. You cannot beat it into subjugated peoples.*

Again. Please do a little reading on the purpose of the US Special Forces. The idea isn't to force the people into line at the point of a gun, it's to show the people how bad off they are, then let THEM take up arms and thow off their opprossers(sp).

*The *entire* population of reunified Germany would probably take issue with your theory as well.*
1.) Ain't my theory so I don't care if the "Jelly Donuts" (;)) take issue with it or not. Don Baden is the guy to talk to. (he was my sophmore HS teacher back in 1967 that first explained the "Bread Basket/nuke silo" correlation).
2.)I apologize to anyone that suffered any real losses during hot periods of the cold war. The truth is however that the "Soviet Threat" ie:"big bad boogie man" - was as necessary then as it is now. It's one of those "the sob I know instead of the sob I don't know" kind of things. If the USSR hadn't existed as a *threat*, rest assured someone would have invented them. You see the same thing now with China, now that the USSR is gone.
I'm going to be very facetious here just to make a point. Do you think JFK would have gotten any support from anyone if he would have claimed Latvia was putting weapons in Cuba in 1962? Couse not. Point is, to justify spending - both military and NASA for that matter, we (USA) needed an *enemy* of substancial means. The same applied on both sides- tempers would flare - fear would grow - and the result was some 'hot' action instead of 'cold'.
 
Last edited:
When I graduated from High School I was 18, no plans or money for college and had a low number for the draft lottery. Honestly, it scared the hell out of me.
Fortunately my number didn't come up and I enlisted after being out of school for a couple of years.
I now have a 17 year old son. If the draft were re-enstated I would encourage him to enlist in either the Navy or Air Force.
 
There won't be a draft because the military doesn't want it. It would cause a huge drop in the quality of the soldiers in the military. The military could easily double its size without using the draft at all... compare the size of the military in the 1980s to the present and you will see what I mean.

The military got good soldiers out of drafts in the past (e.g. for World Wars) only by drafting VAST numbers, then rejecting the huge proportion of physically and mentally unfit individuals. It works OK for big popular wars where alot of the folks might have volunteered anyway.
 
Hal

I may be younger than you, but don't for a moment think that gives your "theory" any credence whatsoever. I would love to continue this, but it is completely off-topic here. I suggest another, more topical, thread if you wish to continue this "discussion".
 
The mail server was down a couple days and I've been honey-doing rather intensively during the time so I missed notifications - no excuse though.

First, Hal... I should have added "... but there ARE boogeymen." For sure.

Second, if the conversation goes elsewhere, let me know.

Meanwhile, there's the planning for the draft and there's the practical (political) "assumption" that it isn't popular. There have been remarks by the "talking heads" and the "invisible vocal cords" of TV and radio who poo-poohed the draft bills when discussed recently (though they've been available since Jan 7, 2003) as politically charged... and right or wrong, something akin to social engineering.

Lak has stated
Well, let's see; many in europe, more in the Balkans, N Africa, Iran, Iraq and other mid east countries, Afghanistan, Tajikstan, Uzbekhastan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, parts of southern Russia, part of SW China, Bangladesh, parts of India/Nepal, Burma and other parts of SE Asia, Indonesia, Phillipines. How many muslims? A billion? A billion and a half? More?

Just how big a "draft" is going to "win a war" with every muslim militant in the Balkans, the mid east, asia, and the far east? Someone is being hopeful to understate the matter.
Click to expand...
Just how does a "viirus" like this spread so fast, so far? Mr. Usama B. must have been at this a long time - or is he just the latest link in the catalyst chain? Yes, Lak - it does seem the draft would be a bit undersized.

Anyway, when I put this subject up it was to alert the reader for whatever the value. What to do? At the moment, I have no idea. I do hope that others, hopefully those "in the know", DO have ideas.

-Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top