The DRAFT just took one Giant Step Closer ! (must read) -- Fin. Times

[Dems Will Win]

GREETINGS!!

The DRAFT just took a giant step closer! Unreported in the U.S. media, the CBO reported early last month that the army will be "unable to sustain an occupation force of the present size beyond March 2004". They cannot extend the tour of duty (see below) as that will completely blow the recruitment and re-enlistment rates. That is just another red herring to throw everyone off the real story.

All Bush can do now is somehow get through the next year by calling up every person in a uniform and send them to Iraq. Remember that the Pentagon admitted it will increase troops and keep at least 100,000 through 2006. In short, Bush and Rummy run out of replacement troops next Spring and they're planning to replace regular soldiers with Reservists, Band members, the Coast Guard and anybody else they can get their hands on without using the DRAFT.

But then they are done. They will have to move to activate the DRAFT as soon as possible after the election or give up the Iraq/PNAC Plan and let Saddam come back in.

Put what is below with the SSS plan to bring DRAFT ACTIVATION TIME down to 75 days by March 31, 2005. (http://www.sss.gov / click on 2004 Performance Plan -- and notice they put the DRAFT BOARD NOTICE BACK UP -- THIS TIME ON THE HOME PAGE!!)

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

<snip>

Find this article at:
http://news.ft.com/s01/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=F...

Or if you don't have a subscription to the Financial Times of London
http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Articles/968.aspx

[Media_Lies_Daily]

1. Assuming that an election will be held in 2004, the NeoCon Junta cannot...

...afford to have the draft brought into play prior to the 2004 elections. They will strip all other commands of all available troops before they throw the draft into the election equation.

The Selective Service System has already been allocated $28 million to have the draft system ready to go in mid-2005.

[DCDemo]

2. That's one BIG assumption.

I don't see them relinquishing this power or letting someone they despise screw up their plans.

It just seems that they have gone too far to let a real election happen. If it gets to be close or losing for Bush, I'm sure there will be a national emergencgy declared that will allow "indefinite postponement" of Presidential elections.

And the people will just go along. It's truly frightening these days in DC.

[Dems Will Win]

3. That's why we have to add that equation up for the public here at DU

My original thread on the 2004 $28 million activation money ended up on 40 blogs, Buzzflash, WhatReallyHappened, IndyMedia and others. So let's get the word out on this one too!

Also go to this site http://www.bushdraft.com

Anti-DRAFT poster to print out, my original thread on one page and lots of other stuff. Check it out!

If you don't want Bush re-elected, tell every soul you meet for the NEXT 11 MONTHS Bush is working as fast as he can to re-instate the DRAFT in 2005...

[PaDUer]

18. There's been different websites

already polling about the draft. Thus far, the NO's are ahead, until those sites are found and freeped.

[BootinUp]

4. This shouldn't be a surprise

Thanks to DU'ers that have been posting about the Selective Service activity of late. Also, Clark came out back in July saying on the cable news channels that we were overextended and something had to give.

My opinion us that Bush will avoid the draft like the plague. In other words there will be another major strategy change that will include troop deployments worldwide. Will we be safer? Will Iraq ever see progress toward a democracy? I don't see the light at the end of this tunnel.

[truthspeaker]

14. "Bush will avoid the draft like the plague"

Wouldn't be the first time.

[Dems Will Win]

15. LOL!

Good one!

[WillyT]

5. Kick !!! --- And Bookmarked, Thanks For Posting This !!!

We need to beat the drums on this, THIS YEAR!!!

If you want the draft, vote for Bush!

[xray s]

6. Bush has destroyed the volunteer military

And that will destroy his pResidency. No way to hide this one until after the election.

[oasis]

The UN is wise to PNAC and they won't send troops to aid Pax Americana.

so can't count on them either.

[oasis]

24. The UN is wise to PNAC and they won't send troops to aid Pax Americana.

so can't count on them either.

[mitchum]

7. keeping it on the front page kick

[MattNC]

8. i like how...

you just continue to assume this is so automatic to happen without looking at the situation fully.

is the army stretched thin? yes.

is a draft the only solution to it if bush is re-elected? no.

you don't consider...

1) that the 106,000 is ironclad - and even if it is, that it can only be supplemented with draftees (i cant count how many time ive seen force projections for iraq revised)

2) that the Iraqi police could continue to gradually replace U.S. troops - not the best solution for security of the country, but if it's politically expedient you know we'll do it. plus, the security situation could be vastly improved by '06. don't know if it will be or not, but ya never know..

3) that our ongoing efforts in iraq won't be internationalized - seems like a long shot now. but again, as the situation warrants, the administration would do it in a second if it had little other choice.

4) that our forces could be re-aligned around the globe (as is being considered)over the course of a few years

5) that mr. rumsfeld & his associates are very strong proponents of the all-volunteer force -- and rightly so

6) most importantly, you rarely discuss the political consequences of such an action - even with a second term, the political considerations are still an issue for bush and the republicans (let's not forget we have a congress that has to approve it)

7) that the SSS appropriations have not even been approved; that $28 million is only a modest increase (it's not an EXTRA $28 million), and that they've been planned for a while (not directly related to Iraq)

i can go on if you want...

[Clark Can WIN]

9. I agree with everything you said Matt

But I also think if W gets elected (finally) to office Syria and Iran will be next on the platter and the draft....... oh yes, it'll happen.

[MattNC]

10. i'm not convinced yet

i think iraq has caused syria to "get the message" so to speak (see: handing over turkish bombing suspects). but there are certainly other factors that could lead to war, and i'd probably place them #1 on the list of a war in his next term

iran, who knows. it would be highly counter-productive, but we know that probably doesnt matter to this administration.

regardless, i cant picture us engaging in the kind of nation-building effort we're seeing now in iraq if we were to attack either of the two. i just don't think it's an option. i could maybe see some sort of isolated strikes against the two but not an all-out invasion.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

17. Iraq "got the message", too...look what happened to them. Here's the...

...bottom line with the NeoCon Junta...they have a gameplan to control and/or dominate the Middle East and no amount of rational thinking will stop them from attacking Syria and Iran in pretty short order.

120,000 additional troops have recently been called up, allegedly to serve as replacements for the troops we currently have in Iraq. IMHO, I don't think ANY of the current front line troops will be going home anytime soon...they will be used for the next round of assaults.

[Dems Will Win]

13. Thanks Matt, for debating and making this interesting. I appreciate all

your posts, they are GOOD questions. I hope you're right Matt, BUT:

1) that the 106,000 is ironclad - and even if it is, that it can only be supplemented with draftees (i cant count how many time ive seen force projections for iraq revised)

Matt, the 106,000 is the Pentagon's own most recent number and it's obvious we can't even stabilize the country with the current 130,000 troops--remember only a fraction of those are actually fighting, the rest are protecting buildings and doing logistics. McCain says that's not enough and he's right. The only reason they talk less troops is politics and you must know that, no?

2) that the Iraqi police could continue to gradually replace U.S. troops - not the best solution for security of the country, but if it's politically expedient you know we'll do it. plus, the security situation could be vastly improved by '06. don't know if it will be or not, but ya never know..

Iraqization will work far worse than Vietnamization because there is so much islamic fundamentalist pressure there to kick us out. The Iraqi police regularly let the other side know everything we do and people are so petrified Saddam will return, almost no one in the Sunni triangle is giving intelligence to us. Plus it was reported in DEBKA that Saddam has an underground city in the "Wadi" in West Iraq (where no U.S. soldier ever goes). Although this was never reported here or anywhere else except DEBKA, if true, we now have a situation just like Vietnam where a guerilla force has a safe haven they can go in and out of and harass us for years to come.

3) that our ongoing efforts in iraq won't be internationalized - seems like a long shot now. but again, as the situation warrants, the administration would do it in a second if it had little other choice.

The reason it will never do it is PNAC. PNAC means they want to CONTROL the oil for the American corporations and Halliburton, not share it with the French and the Russians. However, if Bush sinks too low in the polls next year, he might make a deal, but this is now a long shot as you say.

4) that our forces could be re-aligned around the globe (as is being considered)over the course of a few years

This is how they are going to get through 2005. Take the troops out of South Korea. I hear they already taken most out of Germany. But they can only take so many without making the North Korean situation flare up. So this will only buy them maybe 15,000 to 20,000 troops--not enough.

5) that mr. rumsfeld & his associates are very strong proponents of the all-volunteer force -- and rightly so

Only before September, they have shut up about not needing a draft after that and let the spokesman Amon say that. Very ominous. Are you telling DU that because Rummy said something it's true? Of course they will say that. You think they are going to say "We will need a draft in 2005 to stay in Iraq?"

6) most importantly, you rarely discuss the political consequences of such an action - even with a second term, the political considerations are still an issue for bush and the republicans (let's not forget we have a congress that has to approve it)

Matt, they obviously don't want to activate it for political reasons. I'm saying they have no choice, it's DRAFT or lose Iraq in 2006 or 2007. AS Poppy used to say: "na gonna do it". That's why the secret DRAFT ACTIVATION date is June 15, 2005. Bush will come and say "We're not going to cut and run, I need the Draft. The Volunteer Army was never intended to serve in war, only in peacetime (official SSS mission by the way)." Tom Delay and Bill Frist are going to say no after a Bush re-election??

7) that the SSS appropriations have not even been approved; that $28 million is only a modest increase (it's not an EXTRA $28 million), and that they've been planned for a while (not directly related to Iraq).

Matt, the budget for 2002 was $25 million, the budget for 2003 was $26 million and both were for salary and keeping the SSS in hibernation. This Performance Plan is clearly earmarked as an EXTRA $28 million:

Strategic Goal 1: Increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the Manpower Delivery Systems (Projected allocation for FY 2004 – $7,942,000)

Strategic Goal 2: Improve overall Registration Compliance and Service to the Public (Projected allocation FY 2004 – $8,769,000)

Strategic Goal 3: Enhance external and internal customer service
(Projected allocation for FY 2004 – $10,624,000)

Strategic Goal 4: Enhance the system which guarantees that each conscientious objector is properly classified, placed, and monitored.(Projected allocation for FY 2004 – $955,000)

Total=$28,290,000

If it is not extra, why do they separate it out in this special 2004 Performance Plan? Also I believe it was in the Defense Budget signed
on November 24, 2003. You might be right on number 7. Let's keep looking into it, Matt.

Thanks for the debate, it sure has honed us all for the campaign to re-defeat Bush. Now when someone brings these arguments up I have been honed by MattNC and give them the rapid-fire reply.

However, where would they get the troops for 2006? The CBO itself (always the biggest truth-teller in the past) says without longer deployments or re-deployments they won't make it past March 2004 to maintain what we have and the 60 Congressmen want 2 more divisions, not less! As I said, they may be able to cover 2005 somehow, someway, but 2006 looks bad. Also don't forget the 10,000 wounded and the nearly 500 dead. They won't be going back and at the November kill-rate, we will soon be at 1300 or 1400 dead a year and over 10,000 wounded or ill every year. They won't be going back either.

It just doesn't add up not matter what the Bushies say now, it just doesn't add up.

[MattNC]

19. i'm curious to know

1) how many people do you think they'll need to draft?

2) what age groups will that likely affect?

If they perform peacekeepking duties in Iraq (which is they only thing I can imagine draftees doing in today's modern army), I would guess something around 200-300,000 at the most. That would likely affect those who will be 20, 21, and probably 22 in '05 or '06 -- whenever it would occur.

But I also want to add I still think you'd see a MASSIVE recruitment made by the military -- and probably personal pleas from Bush -- before you see them even consider a draft. I've heard in passing of a program that would up the benefits for college while decreasing the time to serve in the Army in exchange for the financial aid.

Additionally, if a draft is to likely occur, I'd endorse a program of mandatory national service/defense not mandatory military service -- but we'll see...

[Dems Will Win]

21. How many people? Impossible to tell with all the variables but

For Iraq: (to hold on and fight the Baathists and al-Queda)troop levels would have to stay close to where they are now where they are now, at around 130,000. To go get Saddam in the Wadi, the Mossad says we will need another 100,000 men and we will lose 3,000 killed. This is probably why Rummy is so hot for and just got funded the nuke-tipped Bunker Buster bomb, to hit Saddam in his underground complex. You don't need those for caves in Afghanistan. If they are plumb out of people and have deployed everyone they can by the end of 2004 and early 2005, they would depend solely on the recruitment and retention rate.

I agree with you they will try to recruit all they can but most, even conservative youth, will avoid the recruiter from now on so that will not work, I fear.

They will clearly be short men by 2006 but by how much depends on the actual recruitment and retention next year and the year after. Most are expecting the significant drop to come next year.

Here is an article from MSNBC 2 weeks ago:

<snip>

Experts say the first signs of trouble are surfacing now in the Guard and Reserve, whose soldiers are generally older than their active duty comrades, many of them with families. Even as the active duty services and reserves made their recruitment targets in fiscal 2003, the Army National Guard was behind in meeting its target of 60,000 new recruits by nearly 15 percent with only a month left. A huge last-minute infusion of bonus money and other benefits helped close the gap, but the warning signs were noted. Indeed, because of the annual nature of the figures, many feel the dip the Army National Guard experienced in fiscal 2003 may not even reflect the full impact of Iraq’s descent into guerrilla fighting.
There is real concern that 2004 could see retention rates drop dramatically as the stress of long-term deployments and combat duty on family-oriented Guard and reserve troops begins to show.
“Retention is what I am most worried about. It is my No. 1 concern,” Lt. Gen. James Helmly, the head of the Army reserve, told USA Today last month. “This is the first extended-duration war the country has fought with an all-volunteer force.”

<snip>

A BILL COMING DUE?
None of the fixes proposed by Rumsfeld will be fast in coming, however. Analysts suggest that if the Army does reach its “tipping point” — the point where retention and recruitment drops below the ability to sustain current training and missions — it may catch the Pentagon by surprise. While current figures show no problems, as Abell notes, he concedes it may be too early to say for sure.

<snip>

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/995062.asp?0cv=CB20

The difference in how many Drafted also comes down to what Cheney and Rummy plan to do. My belief is that a re-elected Bush will go after Saddam in the Wadi and increase troops in Afghanistan to 30,000 and will increase troop in the 2 dozen new countries we now have bases in, especially in Central Asia where the oil is.

If they go full out for the PNAC Plan and take Saddam out as well, then we're looking at rotating 280,000 troops in 2006-7 and 180,000 to 150,000 troops in 2008, as taking out Saddam in the Wadi would be over and the extra 100,000 will return home. Syria I've heard would be an extra 30,000 and they will have to occupy. Iran I don't even want to venture a guess. If, however, Russia and China decide to really challenge us in Central Asia, then all bets are off, the neo-cons go ape and they could DRAFT several hundred thousand over a couple of years (call it Dubya Dubya III). Any DRAFT activation would have to be upwards of 100,000 a year or it's just not worth it. All I know is the figures don't add for 2006 or the out-years, given the predicted fall in retention and recruitment and the fact that no one goes TWICE to Iraq unless they volunteer. They are depending on the Guard and Reserves and that's where the problem will really hit.

20-year olds of 2005 would go first, then 21, 22, up to 26.

Health care DRAFT I've heard everything from 6,000 to 80,000 per year. But the higher figure is the neo-cons go ape number, I'm sure. The Special Skills DRAFT of computer techies and engineers and linguists and many other jobs would be similar, Brodsky said.

In the Health and Special DRAFTS, the SSS would say DoD needs 300 orthopedic surgeons. They then draw out the birthdays randomly in a Special Skills Lottery until they have a few thousand names. If you are under 45, have that skill and birthday, you will receive a DRAFT NOTICE. Age does not count in the Health Care and Special Skills Lotterys. All years are mixed together. Once they hit their goal of 300 they would stop inducting for that year.

The hell of it is in the Health and Special DRAFTS, you are eligible for the duration of the War on Terra, which Bush said would last the rest of our lifetimes. Age does not matter until you reach your 45th Birthday in these DRAFTS.

[newyawker99]

11. Dems Will Win

Per DU copyright rules
please post only 4
paragraphs from the
news source.

Thank you.


NYer99
DU Moderator

[dusty64]

12. Unreported in the U.S. media,

now that is a real surprise. I no longer have any doubts the draft IS coming back, and it appears it will have a LOT of support from Democrats. When it does occur with their support, I've decided I will NO longer give them my support, money, or votes. I will be done with them.

[ramapo]

16. Where are all the volunteers?

You'd think that the pro-war crowd would be clamoring to enlist. What about all those who are so in favor of kicking ass?

The Chickenhawks are omnipresent...

[MattNC]

20. kick

[WillyT]

22. Kick !!!

[tnlefty]

23. thanks again

[Dems Will Win]

25. Zell Miller says we may "need the DRAFT" -- especially if his candidate

gets back in!

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/11/3/164417.sht...

<snip>

Monday, Nov. 3, 2003 4:21 p.m. EDT
Zell Miller: Draft May Be Necessary to Win War on Terror

The U.S. may need to reinstate a military draft in order to win the war on terrorism, retiring Sen. Zell Miller said on Monday.

"While I don't think we're close to that yet, that may be on down the line," the Georgia Democrat told nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity.

"We must stay the course," explained Miller. "We cannot cut and run because if we do not fight this war in Iraq we're going to have to fight in on the streets of America. And we cannot allow that to happen."

"Perhaps may be something we have to consider on down the line," the former Marine added. "It will be tough. A lot of people will not like it. But it may very well be something that we have to look at very seriously."

<snip>