If Kerry wins, will the draft be reinstated?

[Goldmund]

Poll question: If Kerry wins, will the draft be reinstated?

We're all in a near-consensus that the draft will be inevitable if the Bush idea of foreign policy is allowed to continue for another 4 years.

But Kerry won't be starting with a clean slate either -- he will be left with a handful of hot potatos when he's inaugurated. Of course, he will implement a less agressive and more sane foreign policy; but starting from the spot we will be in after 4 years of this disaster, will he be able to manage to claw out without reinstating the draft himself?

Has the Bushgang left us with a cannon ball whose inertia will be sufficient to carry us toward a draft, even if it is no longer propelled?

I personally honestly don't have a good answer to this question, though I often think about it. Of course, one of the factors will be how much support he will have in the Congress. Assuming we won't win back the house (which is a pretty good assumption IMO), and that we have a good shot at the Senate, will Kerry reinstate the draft?

[veteran_for_peace]

1. We need the troops

We don't have enough troops over there and we will need them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Yes. Unless he changes his tune about waiting for "stability".

Nobody wants to acknowledge the "war" is lost and the occupation is just making it worse.

[Goldmund]

3. It seems to me...

...that whoever the next President is, he will be absolutely hated by the time the end of his term comes along. And if we win now, we're likely to lose in 2008; if Bush wins now, there won't be any Republican presidents for a couple of terms after 2008.

Kerry will have to move mountains to change that situation. As far as I can see, whoever the next President is will be in a politically unsolvable situation.

Which is yet another reason that the prospect of a lame-duck Bushgang (whose political strategists are, in addition, surely aware that a republican successor to Bush is very unlikely) is so scary.

[stinkeefresh]

4. I don't know.

These guys always think victory is likely, don't they?

I think Kerry can avoid a draft by getting troop commitments from allies (in exchange for a various reconstruction and oil contracts).

[mike_c]

32. or by admitting the obvious and pulling out unconditionally....

eom

[AntiFascist]

5. This is a good argument.....

for a Freeper to make.

If Bush wins reelection he will have no moral problem whatsoever in starting a draft and continuing the project of the neo-cons, they are counting on it! By the end of a 4 year term the draft will become an accepted fact of life and it will continue.

Kerry's administration will have no such obligations and will be more motivated to work with Europeans and others, and solve the financial problems involved in our strategy with Iraq, also placating those Iraqis who side with the insurgency.

Does this mean terrorists want Kerry to win? Certainly not, Bush's aggressive stance has been a great recruitment tool for them, which Kerry would only diffuse.

Also, don't forget that several Supreme Court justices will have to retire in the next 4 years and Bush has been adamant about putting in right-wingers to fill the vacancies.

[Goldmund]

6. That's a good argument.....

for an 11 year old to make.

Did I somewhere say that I wanted Bush to win? Or that I didn't care who won? What do Supreme Court justices have to do with anything? Of course "the terrorists" want Bush to win, that's obvious. And of course that if Kerry wins we'll be in a lot less trouble than if Bush wins -- hello??? Who questioned that?

What I was saying is that even the "less trouble" may be enough trouble to make the draft inevitable -- _may_ be, I haven't commited myself to one position or the other, I'm just throwing it out for thought.

"Kerry's administration will have no such obligations and will be more motivated to work with Europeans and others, and solve the financial problems involved in our strategy with Iraq, also placating those Iraqis who side with the insurgency."

Yeah. I agree -- that he will attempt to do so. But there are two things here: what Kerry wants to do, and what Kerry can do. Kerry doesn't have a magic wand and he's not omnipotent, ferchristsakes.

I think you either are in an unhealthy awe of Kerry and think he can accomplish the magical, or you're underestimating the level of damage Bushgang has done.

And next time, spare me the Kerry campaign talking points, alright? It's not like I need convincing who to vote for.

[AntiFascist]

7. Your anger would make one question your true motives....

I'm glad to hear that you don't want Bush to win, but if you're trying to discourage younger voters with your argument that a draft is inevitable, then go ahead and be a defeatist. I believe the Kerry campaign has stated that their goal is not to start a draft, so at least take them at their word.

Supreme Court justices may not have a lot to do directly with the draft, but it is an indication that the legal system will be bending in a conservative direction under 4 more years of Bush. All the more reason to motivate people to vote for Kerry, regardless of how you feel about what he can accomplish.

I don't have a "magical" or "unhealthy" view of Kerry, but I do feel that he has a tremendous amount of support both internationally and domestically, much more so than we saw in the last campaign with Gore. Anyone who is elected president has to rely on his team, no one can do it all alone.

[Goldmund]

8. You've outed me. I'm for Nader.

Damn. I've kept my cover up for so long.

You know, not every opinion, not every discussion, not every statement, has a political agenda behind it. My motive was discussion -- not to "encourage" or "discourage" or anything of the sort. Just to seek out good arguments, good thought, the truth, good speculation, you know, those sorts of things.

As far as your Supreme Court argument -- again, you're arguing that it would be better if Kerry won. I (obviously!) agree, but this conversation is not about that.

And what anger? I'd rather be called an 11 year old than a freeper.

[AntiFascist]

10. That's fine.....

now we know where you're coming from, and sorry no more insults from me....or were you being sarcastic about Nader?

Anyway, as for discussing issues based on truthful arguments, I'm all for that, and I'll try to keep the political bias down (just don't try to argue what Nader would do better than Kerry). The issue at hand is: what is Kerry capable of doing in Iraq that won't require a draft after he is elected.

I'm certainly no expert on all the issues, but I have been reading about the whole PNAC situation for several years. Rather than go into a lot of detail, I think the global economic issues boil down to this:

The U.S. "petro" dollar is in a precarious situation, not having control of oil would put the U.S. economy in a serious situation, which could realistically be perceived as a "security risk" to the U.S. The European community is becoming more united and emerging as a viable alternative to oil producing countries like Iraq.

I believe Bush has already blown it in Iraq and a major military effort will be required to defend oil pipelines in Iraq from continually getting blown up and being productive. Bush is committed to the U.S. oil companies. Kerry, on the other hand, is not a puppet for U.S. oil interests and may have a better chance of negotiating a win-win situation between multi-national interests.

This is only an economic aspect of an argument which may or may not turn out to be true.

[Goldmund]

11. Yes, I was being sarcastic about Nader.

I agree that there's a far bigger chance that the draft will be reinstated if Bush wins. That's beyond discussion, I think. But the question of this thread is whether or not the lesser chance of a draft in the case of Kerry victory still translates to a likelyhood.

[Radical Activist]

25. Right. He will have to change his current plan

We won't be able to stabilize Iraq without a lot more troops and thinking that other nations will commit major forces to Iraq is unrealistic. The longer the war lasts,the more popular a quick withdrawal will become. That is the only way to avoid a draft. We might get away with turning it over to the UN. Kucinich was called crazy for wanting to get out in 90 days but his stance will eventually win out because the people won't stand for a draft.

[SheilaT]

9. It has nothing to do with who wins the election.

It all depends on the need to maintain troop strength. If Kerry doesn't commit to pulling out of Iraq pretty quickly, and unless a lot of young men and women decide that enlisting is a Good Idea, a draft is going to be needed.

I wouldn't put it past the Bush cabal to set things up precisely so a draft will be needed pretty much as soon as Kerry takes office, assuming they actually relinquish power.

And if the Bushies do stay in power, they will have no qualms about reinstating a draft, only they may make it look like something else, some kind of universal "voluntary" service. But you need it to be able to get a job, or your high school diploma, or something else like that. Don't put anything past them.

[Goldmund]

12. Great points.

"I wouldn't put it past the Bush cabal to set things up precisely so a draft will be needed pretty much as soon as Kerry takes office, assuming they actually relinquish power."

That's exactly what my fear is. That during their last 2-month lame-duck stretch they will try to put as many things in motion that are consistent with their agenda as they can, that Kerry will either not be able to stop or will have to expend a huge amount of energy to stop.

[AntiFascist]

13. This would explain why Cheney....

"threatened" that the U.S. would get attacked if Kerry wins. My question would be, why would Kerry be committed to carrying through the long-term plans in the Middle East just because we are retaliating, in the short-term, for an attack? Where would be the motivation for this?

[Goldmund]

14. I'm not sure I understand your question

Where would whose motivation for this be? And motivation for what? I don't think I'm getting what you're saying. Please clarify.

[AntiFascist]

15. You're arguing that a draft....

will be required because Bush will set certain things in motion during the last 2 months of his lame duck presidency. What would Kerry's motivation be for carrying through with whatever was set in motion, particularly with respect to a draft? At this point Kerry has already won the election, even if public opinion suddenly turned in favor of using massive military power....are you saying Kerry might "change his mind"?

[Goldmund]

16. I'm not arguing that.

I'm simply throwing the thought out for some chewing. In my replies to your posts, it may seem like that, because I _am_ arguing that you can't blindly dismiss that possibility -- but as I've said, I'm not commited to one position or the other.

What will Kerry's motivation be? That's such an easy question. The same motivation that makes him commited to "winning in Iraq" right now. Think about it. Using "massive military power" may be the _only_way_ to "win" in Iraq. No, Kerry won't just carry through the PNAC plan, of course. But he may be stuck in a position in which the choices he has are to declare the war lost, or to start a draft.

[AntiFascist]

17. My response, then, is....

there is a significant portion of the Iraqi population that is cooperating with the insurgency because they want the U.S. out. By co-opting mutli-national and European interests Kerry may be able to diffuse this aspect of the Iraq population, even though it might have little effect on the insurgency itself.

[Goldmund]

18. I agree,

he _may_ be able to do that. But Iraqis may not care much whether their occupiers have US flags or French flags on their uniforms -- in addition to the fact that the folks with the French (and other) flags on their uniforms don't exactly seem eager to test this theory. We shall see.

[Djinn]

24. who are the "other nations"

that are suddenly going to come to the rescue of American geo-political goals??

I keep seeing this repeated but I havn't seen a single indication that any nations that aer not involved now would change their minds were Kerry to be elected or that nations already involved would increase their troop size.

There is NO chance of reconstruction and oil contracts going to other nations as bribes for troops becasue it pretty much defeats one of the main reasons for being there in the first place, and quite frankly that oil and those contracts should not be the US's to give anyway.

[AntiFascist]

38. this is where democracy comes into play....

it should be the Iraqi people's choice of how the oil fields are maintained and who the oil is sold to. There are also a number of Iraqis who want us to stay and fight off the insurgency, and then get the hell out. There are also some that want us to stay and bring in development of all other industrial interests.

If Iraqis are eventually going to become more industrialized,they might feel more comfortable with a European influence and an American president who can relate and, of course, provide the security. Sunnis may be more friendly toward the EU, I don't know about the Shia, but they must have some economic interest. There are also the Russian oil companies and China and India as emerging customers.

[Djinn]

47. the Iraqis were plenty industrialised

before we sanctioned and bombed the arse out of them - they had better medical care than the vast majority of Americans prior to sanctions.

Yes it SHOULD be the coice of the Iraqis as to who gets their oil but it wont be so long as other nations are more powerful than they are - hence why the US has absolutely no intention of ever allowing a democratically elected government in Iraq as the chances of it being sympathetic or friendly to the US is that of a snowballs in hell

[Kanary]

19. Point of order: language. "Kerry will have no choice......."

Kerry *has* a choice..... remember the lessons of his Vietnam days, and get the troops out of Iraq immediately after he is inaugurated. As another poster said, the war is already lost, and staying there makes it worse for all concerned.

Not remembering that lesson from his own youth is depressing beyond words.

He has the choice.

Doe he have the will?

Kanary

[Goldmund]

20. I totally agree.

By saying "has no choice" I mean "no choice" in the context of his particular political position. Yes, the war's already lost. But Kucinich had that plan -- to withdraw as soon as he's inaugurated -- and look what happened to him. It's a nice pipe dream to think that Kerry will withdraw in February, and he's just not saying that so that he can actually win the elections. But you and I both know that won't happen.

[Kanary]

21. Which is exactly why all anti-war DEms will be persona non grata

Shades of Vietnam.........

deja vu all over again.

CRAP!

kill me now.....

Kanary

[Goldmund]

22. Which is exactly why I'm re-registering as an independent on Nov 3rd.

And also why Kerry will be advised to consider me his opposition after his victory.

If he wins, Goddess willing.

[Dems Will Win]

23. KERRY HAS A NO-DRAFT PLAN

Wesley Clark revealed the secret neo-con plan in his book Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire:

“I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, and one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. So, I thought, this is what they mean when they talk about ‘draining the swamp.’"

Assuming Libya is now off the list, according to Clark Bush and the neo-cons plan to invade 5 more countries. That need does not include trying to defeat the insurgents solely with the U.S. military as a re-elected Bush might attempt. Bush, moreover, is building 14 permanent bases and huge intelligence centers in Iraq and has no intention of ever leaving that oil to the Russians or even worse, the French.

The major media cover hardly anything that John Kerry says, especially if it is about the draft. So you would never know it, but John Kerry has a No-Draft Plan, a plan to strengthen the military in key areas yet draw down U.S. troop levels in Iraq by internationalizing the situation and then getting out as soon as possible.

Here are the five main points of Kerry’s No-Draft Plan:

1. Move some paper-pushers to combat (lots of potential there)

2. Increase enlistment with real scholarships, benefits and pay raises

3. Let troops know Special Ops will hunt al-Queda, no more invasions needed, so re-up rate goes up. "Primarily a law enforcement effort, not a full military effort", said John Kerry on Meet The Press.

4. Start a "Civilian Stability Corps" that would help in reconstructing Afghanistan and Iraq and relieve military pressure. It would be kind of like the Peace Corps—but on steroids.

5. GET FOREIGN TROOPS TO COME INTO INSTEAD OF LEAVE IRAQ.

Kerry gave some details about the proposed Civilian Stability Corps, made up of volunteers:

"...I propose that we enlist thousands of them in a Civilian Stability Corps, a reserve organization of volunteers ready to help win the peace in troubled places. Like military reservists, they will have peacetime jobs; but in times of national need, they will be called into service to restore roads, renovate schools, open hospitals, repair power systems, draft a constitution, or build a police force. A Civilian Stability Corps can bring the best of America to the worst of the world—and reduce pressure on the military."
- Source: Kerry, John. "Protecting Our Military Families in Times of War: A Military Family Bill of Rights." March 17, 2004. http://johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0317.html >

In April, on a conference call with 130 College Newspaper Editors, Kerry said “No Draft”, that he would have a sensible foreign policy that would not require reinstatement. And in June, Kerry told a Wisconsin high school that if elected, a draft would be "absolutely unnecessary".

Kerry’s plan calls for increasing active-duty troop levels by 40,000 people. He also doubles the number of Special Ops troops. Half the 40,000 being added are civil engineering/reconstruction specialists and half are combat, costing an extra $7 billion, but it relieves the pressure on the Guard and Reserves for overseas deployments and essentially saves the Volunteer Army. $7 billion is well worth not having to bring back the draft!

Kerry charges that Bush is ruining the Volunteer approach with long Guard and Reserve deployments and numerous stop-loss orders, which Kerry says is a “Back-door Draft”. Since Kerry will increase pay, benefits, scholarships and reduce long deployments of regular troops and the reserves, if he is elected the re-enlistment rates and recruitment rates will return to normal. Recently, troops returning from Iraq are reportedly leaving the Service in huge numbers, although denied by DoD (see David Hackworth, Voting With their Feet http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38644).

With this No-Draft Plan, Kerry will not have to resort to conscription, even after Bush has made such a mess of it in Iraq. Kerry has also pledged that he will push renewable energy development and true energy independence, “so that we never again have soldiers dying for oil”.

Kerry has criticized the inequality of the draft, that the poor and minorities are inducted in higher numbers than their fair share and that the draft is a source of conflict. John Kerry will not reinstate the draft—outside of the invasion of the United States by China or something like that.

The choice is thus clear to all voters. Vote for Bush and you are also voting for the resumption of the draft—to man his hidden agenda of invading more countries and staying in Iraq forever.

Or vote for Kerry and you are voting PNAC out of the White House, and with it Bush’s hidden agenda to bring back the draft so U.S. companies can dominate the world’s remaining oil supply.

[Goldmund]

27. Yes, I'm aware of the plan.

1. Move some paper-pushers to combat (lots of potential there)

Why doesn't Bush do this, if they are merely "paper-pushers"?

2. Increase enlistment with real scholarships, benefits and pay raises

Again, why doesn't Bush do this? The Draft would obviously come with substantial political cost; you don't think that cost is bigger than the few hundred mil that would take to do this?

3. Let troops know Special Ops will hunt al-Queda, no more invasions needed, so re-up rate goes up. "Primarily a law enforcement effort, not a full military effort", said John Kerry on Meet The Press.

Yes, this is valid -- fight terrorism instead of using it as an excuse to push wider geopolitical plans; but will that alone be enough? The news will be dominated by American deaths for some time. Also, this only matters once Iraq and Afghanistan are stable.

4. Start a "Civilian Stability Corps" that would help in reconstructing Afghanistan and Iraq and relieve military pressure. It would be kind of like the Peace Corps—but on steroids.

The US troops control only the Kabul area in Afghanistan, and less and less in Iraq. Who will sign up for this -- steroids or not?

5. GET FOREIGN TROOPS TO COME INTO INSTEAD OF LEAVE IRAQ.

I'm sure Kerry will have a better shot at doing this than Bush. But will this "better shot" be good enough? Most governments couldn't be more emphatic about their non-commitment to this.

[Dems Will Win]

29. Let me try to break this to you gently.

Bush wants a DRAFT so he can take over the world's oil supply. We invaded Iraq so Bush could steal all the oil money ($11 billion stolen so far).

We may not be better off with Saddam gone, but Bush and Cheney sure are!

Kerry has abhorred the DRAFT since Vietnam.

Plus he doesn't want to take over anything or steal any money (guess Teresa has enough)

Sure Bush could do all those things but to keep Iraq without foreign help Bush needs at least 150,000 more troops in Iraq plus 75,000 to take Syria, 500,000 to take Iran, and 50,000 at least to take Lebanon from Syria.

Bush needs the Draft by Spring of 2005, Kerry doesn't.

And Kerry would spend $7 billion on his NO-DRAFT PLAN not hunreds of millions.

Unless you think Bush is NOT following the PNAC Plan. And don't talk about 4 more wars being politically unpopular. This is probably the last somewhat free election this country will have. If we don't beat Bush now, we'll have them for the next 20 years.

So Jeb doesn't have to worry about his 8 years coming up in 2008 or George P Bush his 8 years in 2016.

[Goldmund]

31. I agree with everything you just said.

Of course Bush is following the PNAC plan. I even believe that the PNAC plan explains 9/11 (the "Pearl Harbor event"). Again, I'm the last person who needs to be convinced about this.

This isn't the issue at all. Of course there's a far greater chance that the Draft will be reinstated under Bush (because, as you clearly said, his plans call for far more military action). What I'm questioning is whether we'll be in the "all-clear" under Kerry either.

"If we don't beat Bush now, we'll have them for another 20 years." -- I couldn't agree more. For the 100th time, I hate it when these discussions turn to political basics -- I didn't start this thread to sow doubts about Kerry's worthiness to be elected. Geez. All I'm questioning is whether or not Bush has left us with a hot potato that we won't be able to just wake up and turn the page from.

[Dems Will Win]

44. Bush has dangled reconstruction contracts in front of the French and the

others and then took it away. They really hate Bush now but Kerry even looks French and when he asks the French IN FRENCH for French money and even troops they will give it to him because now Elf Auitane can buy oil like Chevron and Texaco!

Then Kerry just needs Special Ops to fight the 2000 al-Quedas and their leadership. He'll never invade those 4 countries.

[mike_c]

35. they already are-- recall what happened at the DNC....

Anti-war dems were muzzled or ejected from the convention.

[Kanary]

49. Agreed -- it's happening everywhere

Including DU.

It's no longer acceptable to be anti-war in the Dem Party.

:cry:

Kanary

[Radical Activist]

26. The Senate won't matter

With Bush in office we know Democrats would oppose the draft. With Kerry in office, he might get some Democrats to go along with it. That makes a draft more likely to clear the Senate with Kerry in offfice.

[Goldmund]

28. So, the Senate _will_ matter?

Albeit the opposite way from the one expressed in my poll?

[Radical Activist]

36. Sure

Democrats would make a stiffer opposition to the draft with Bush in office than they would with Kerry.

[Goldmund]

37. I've got three letters for you:

1.I
2.W
3.R

[AntiFascist]

43. Setting Kerry aside for a moment.....

which "pro-war" democrats would you be concerned about?

[Radical Activist]

46. All the ones who caved in on IWR

that's a pretty big list.

[AntiFascist]

48. they caved because....

of all the emotion following 9/11. Hopefully they learned their lesson and won't repeat the mistake.

[Dems Will Win]

30. Ridiculous!!!!!!!

[jpgray]

33. First term? Even Bush didn't do so in the first term

Why would Kerry? Politically it's suicide, and they've already publicly stated they will not enact one.

[Goldmund]

34. Declaring the war "lost"...

...or trying to hide an unconcealable quagmire may come with an even bigger political cost.

[jpgray]

39. Based on what? (nt)

[Goldmund]

40. Educated guessing.

Which is all any of us have to work with.

[jpgray]

41. Pulling out of Iraq is more popular than a draft

But you are arguing it is less politically viable? Again, based on what?

[Goldmund]

42. I would be very surprised if you produced actual polls to support that...

...statement.

So please do, if you can. Not "Was going to Iraq worth it?", but "Do you support pulling all troops out of Iraq right now?", juxtaposed with "Do you support a general draft if military commanders determine it is necessary?".

If you were right, there would never have been a draft during Vietnam (since I don't see what could have made the relationship between the respective public support for pulling out and instating a draft any different then).

[jpgray]

45. Being 'educated', you shouldn't be surprised

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aaTWV659Mp_8&refer=us

"Among those who would be most affected by the draft, 18 to 29- year-olds, 78 percent say they oppose reinstating mandatory military service to provide soldiers for Iraq"

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=9727

Public Support for Military Draft Low

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0909/p01s02-usgn.html

But other Iraq questions reveal more ambiguous feelings. About half of Americans judge that the US was right to send troops there, according to Gallup Poll figures. There is no clear majority in favor of withdrawing troops from Iraq - just as there is no clear majority in favor of sending more.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040908-032057-4454r.htm

"Fifty-eight percent of respondents to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said they although the high death toll represented a tragic loss of life, the United States should continue its policy in Iraq."

[Goldmund]

50. OK, I stand corrected

although I don't think that the polls you listed would stand to strict statistical scrutiny; the draft poll, for example, is restricted to 18-29 year olds, and none of the other polls explicitly ask if we should pull out of Iraq and declare the war lost.

So bear with me here then, and explain why LBJ didn't just pull out of Vietnam?

And in addition, if Kerry wins that doesn't mean that the neocon-aligned interests will magically disappear from our government. If a draft is in their interest (and declaring a loss is not), you can bet that they will put forth their best propagandistic efforts to make sure that the political cost to Kerry is higher if he withdraws than if he starts a draft. Whether they would succeed is another issue.