← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Peter Phillips
Thread ID: 14054 | Posts: 40 | Started: 2004-06-04
2004-06-04 19:56 | User Profile
Well chaps, America has touched its Nadir.
[QUOTE]
[font=Arial][size=5]Draft dilemma[/size][/font]
[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][size=3]They are going to reintroduce the draft in the US. But it's such a vote loser, no one wants to mention it[/size][/font]
[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif][size=2]John Sutherland Monday May 31, 2004 [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/"][color=#003366]The Guardian[/color][/url]
[/size][/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif][size=2]Last Wednesday, the American public was officially instructed to panic. Attorney general John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller - brows furrowed, faces grim - took over primetime TV to deliver a spine-chilling message to their fellow citizens: "Al-qaida attack imminent."
When, where, and what form the outrage will take, is unknown. But something very, very awful is going to happen very, very soon.
Cynics will be sceptical. Was this another attempt by the administration, like those "orange alerts" last year, to divert attention from Iraq, the soaring price of gasoline, and Abu Ghraib?
On the same day that Ashcroft was terrifying his countrymen, I was emailed by an American student friend. He too is terrified. "The US legislature," he wrote, "is trying to bring back the draft asap. Check it out at [url="http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=5834001&content_dir=ua_congressorg"][color=#003366]www.congress.org[/color][/url]. For some reason no major news networks or printed media in this country are carrying this story. If these bills go through, the only thing between me and military service is my asthma."
He's right. There is pending legislation in the American House of Representatives and Senate in the form of twin bills - S89 and HR163. These measures (currently approved and sitting in the committee for armed services) project legislation for spring 2005, with the draft to become operational as early as June 15.
There already exists a Selective Service System (SSS). All young Americans are obliged to "register for the draft". It has been a mere formality since conscription was abolished three decades ago, after Vietnam, together with the loathed (and much burned) draft card. SSS will be reactivated imminently. A $28m implementation fund has been added to the SSS budget. The Pentagon is discreetly recruiting for 10,350 draft board officers and 11,070 appeals board members nationwide.
Draft-dodging will be harder than in the 1960s. In December 2001, Canada and the US signed a "smart border declaration", which, among other things, will prevent conscientious objectors (and cowards) from finding sanctuary across the northern border. There will be no deferment on higher-education grounds. Mexico does not appeal.
All this has been pushed ahead with an amazing lack of publicity. One can guess why. American newspapers are in a state of meltdown, distracted by war-reporting scandals at USA Today and the New York Times. There is an awareness in the press at large that the "embedding" system was just that - getting into bed with the military and reporting their pillow talk as "news from the frontline". The fourth estate has failed the American public and continues not to do its job. The American public just wants the war to go away. One thing that would get their attention (but not their votes) would be their children being sent off to die in foreign lands. Best not disturb the electorate until after November, seems to be the thinking. There are, after all, more important things than wars: getting your man into the White House, for example. Kerry has clearly calculated that, as president, he too may have to bring in the draft. So his lips are also sealed.
And, of course, the strategic case for the draft is overwhelming. If, as Rumsfeld promises, Iraq turns out to be "a long, hard slog", who will do the slogging? If others follow the Spaniards, and Tony Blair goes, the US may find itself a coalition of one. What then if something blows up in North Korea?
On how many fronts can America fight its global war on terror with a "professional" army of half a million? Half a million and shrinking fast. Reservists are not re-enlisting. They signed up for the occasional weekend playing soldiers and some useful income, not death or glory. Panic Stations (which is where Ashcroft has placed America this summer) serves two purposes. It distracts the electorate and, like any state of emergency, it sanctions tough measures - like the draft. The advice to my student? Work on the asthma.
[/QUOTE][/size][/font]
2004-06-04 20:32 | User Profile
Thanks for posting an important issue. On one hand, it's good that this will get people's attention. I've seen them in the bars cheering war coverage, when it's not them out there.
Now, we'll see how eager the "hawks" are in the "war on terror" when they or loved ones are out there in the 130 Iraqi/Iran heat or a fugitive on the run with a federal arrest warrant...and their wife or GF is with the next door neighbor who got deferred for a dsiability.
Then again, it's shame all of the rest have to get caught up in it.
2004-06-04 20:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right] Now, we'll see how eager the "hawks" are in the "war on terror" when they or loved ones are out there in the 130 Iraqi/Iran heat or a fugitive on the run with a federal arrest warrant...and their wife or GF is with the next door neighbor who got deferred for a dsiability. [/QUOTE] I'm afraid it is even worse than that. Some of the proposals floating around actually call for drafting women! The wife won't be with the neighbor, she'll be in the line of fire.
2004-06-04 21:01 | User Profile
The amazing thing is how the media has not whispered a word about it till now. People haven got a clue that their only two choices for President would BOTH gladly send them to hell for the interests of "Greater Israel". Amazing.
2004-06-04 21:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]Then again, it's shame all of the rest have to get caught up in it.[/QUOTE] This might be the worst mistake the Neo-Cons commit. It has the makings of a massive populist uprising. If resentment is channeled properly.
I think this can be done. But to do this, a broad coalition would have to be formed and all those who hate the establishment (on the left and the right) would have to temporarily bury their differences and launch an open revolt.
2004-06-04 22:38 | User Profile
I'm not so sure I wouldn't refuse to go and refuse to run. Let them start filling prisons with 100,000 persons refusing to support some imperialist drive. If they didn't abuse the troops so bad with all that stupid neocons and PC garbage, more people would volunteer and stay in. I remember what it was like after 4 years. We were laughing at the lifers staying in with all the PC stupidity, acting like it was OK. I wanted to stay in, but it just wasn't right with the war on drugs and all. The EC and neocons had taken over just about everything by 1980. Their were still some hardcore in, but they were getting pushed out quickly. Most of the guys who trained me were the "old crew". those guys knew what they were doing, but they played pretty hard. One night(according to the story), they got drunk and chased a guy(some EC, I think) up a tree, barking like hounds. Crazy guys, but you could trust them with your life.
Plus, .gov could actually spend money on troops' needs and benifits for a change, than all of the billions going to the Pentagon's pork barrel. Not to mention all of the wasted social spending that could be used to protect our borders. I've never seen a country's government so eager to implode.
This is a third rail the neocons are crazy to be messing with.
2004-06-04 22:49 | User Profile
Like I wrote before,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
1- You have to register for the draft
2- You have to go in for a test
3- You have to go in for a physical
4- BUT, When they tell you to step forward and or raise your hand in order to be sworn in YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO IT.
They will harass you and raise hell but then nothing,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Can anyone tell me otherwise?,,,,,,,,,,
PS: 1,2 and 3 is the law,,,,,, 4 is not.
2004-06-04 22:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]Like I wrote before,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
1- You have to register for the draft
2- You have to go in for a test
3- You have to go in for a physical
4- BUT, When they tell you to step forward and or raise your hand in order to be sworn in YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO IT.
They will harass you and raise hell but then nothing,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Can anyone tell me otherwise?,,,,,,,,,,[/QUOTE] I think you'd be asking for the Abu Grabby treatment by doing so, waiting that late.
My consideration would be not going even the first step. "call me when you really need me, not for this political bullshit." If you don't plan to go all the way, why take the first step.
Those Bush jerks talk about enlistment extensions like it's nothing. There are more than a few guys who'd be at home and well if they had not been extended...and for what? What grand task is Bush paying for with those young lives?
He's letting illegals flow over the border like they were dust. In our local town, we have 10-25 illegals waiting on the street for daily labor jobs. The local authorities refuse to do anything. Instead, they're working on making them comfortable as they wait for jobs, and asking them what they need. And those are the ones I know about.
2004-06-07 11:30 | User Profile
This is great news.
A draft would really increase hatred to the Empire and the neo-Kahns.
It would really help to stir up the shite, and help us to make our case.
Let's hope the neo-Kahns are stupid enough to give it to us.
Walter
2004-06-07 12:36 | User Profile
I don't believe it will happen.
2004-06-07 12:49 | User Profile
The US military is under order not to accept "white racists." So if your drafted just tell them your a racist.
2004-06-07 12:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]I don't believe it will happen.[/QUOTE] A draft that includes women, or any draft at all?
There has been "chatter" about reinstating the draft for probably 6 months now, for those that have been paying close attention. It keeps popping up (quietly making proposals, discreetly making sure all draft board vacancies are filled, etc.) and then when anyone notices, the action is disavowed. Then, of course, the next action is taken. So I don't find it all that hard to believe that they would reinstitute a draft. As for the question of drafting women, it is more unlikely, but it is still not impossible. After all, we have a generation of suckers raised on MTV, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Tomb Raider (and Charlie's Angels for that matter.) After all, if women are really exactly so violent, aggressive, horny, and butt-kicking as men, why shouldn't they be drafted? It would be oppressing them to make them stay home. Like, didn't you see G.I. Jane? Girl Power!
2004-06-07 12:55 | User Profile
It may well happen, because the US is running out of troops.
And what will then happen is this:
Draftees will not be as well trained, not as healthy, and even less motivated than professionals.
In a warzone, they will die like flies.
Once reports about the staggering losses reach the homeland, everything is going to fall apart.
Prepare for meltdown within a decade.
2004-06-07 13:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]It may well happen, because the US is running out of troops.
And what will then happen is this:
Draftees will not be as well trained, not as healthy, and even less motivated than professionals.
In a warzone, they will die like flies.
Once reports about the staggering losses reach the homeland, everything is going to fall apart.
Prepare for meltdown within a decade.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, from what I've seen the military is seriously overextended.
Shrub just issued an order [URL=http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0%2C13319%2CFL_army_010604%2C00.html]forcing military personnel who could otherwise retire to stay in their units[/URL]. They're doing a major re-alignment of forces, [URL=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=9&u=/nm/20040607/ts_nm/arms_korea_troops_dc_6]pulling lots of troops out of Korea[/URL] (which is itself crazy, since North Korea is a nuclear menace like Israel and (Heaven Forfend) a militantly Islamic Pakistan).
You couldn't raise the pay enough to get guys to enlist in a volunteer force, not when they could die in some stupid foreign war that has nothing to do with American interests.
And as far as I can see the plight of the Shitty Little Country only worsens. We just lost our ability to read the Iranians' secret code and so now can't know how close Teheran is to going nuclear. Syria is facing restless Kurds and may have to move.
So all the vectors point to a new draft, and all that implies.
The propaganda opportunities for our side are endless, and we need now urgently to focus our message and get the tire on the pavement in terms of concrete actions.
How will we reach those ticked off, frightened kids who will be yanked from their homes and college dorms and sent to boot?
What vision can we offer them as an alternative?
Walter
2004-06-07 15:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Yeah, from what I've seen the military is seriously overextended.
Shrub just issued an order [URL=http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0%2C13319%2CFL_army_010604%2C00.html]forcing military personnel who could otherwise retire to stay in their units[/URL]. They're doing a major re-alignment of forces, [URL=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=9&u=/nm/20040607/ts_nm/arms_korea_troops_dc_6]pulling lots of troops out of Korea[/URL] (which is itself crazy, since North Korea is a nuclear menace like Israel and (Heaven Forfend) a militantly Islamic Pakistan).
You couldn't raise the pay enough to get guys to enlist in a volunteer force, not when they could die in some stupid foreign war that has nothing to do with American interests.
And as far as I can see the plight of the Shitty Little Country only worsens. We just lost our ability to read the Iranians' secret code and so now can't know how close Teheran is to going nuclear. Syria is facing restless Kurds and may have to move.
So all the vectors point to a new draft, and all that implies.
The propaganda opportunities for our side are endless, and we need now urgently to focus our message and get the tire on the pavement in terms of concrete actions.
How will we reach those ticked off, frightened kids who will be yanked from their homes and college dorms and sent to boot?
What vision can we offer them as an alternative?
Walter[/QUOTE]
Good old Isolationism.
"Bring our troops home!" has always been a good slogan, when a war went sour. Particularly when one can truthfully say that the war had been fought for the oil cartel and foreign interests in the first place.
Be ahead of the Liberals with the anti-war message, regardless what the blockheads in the Rep camp say. They will come around fast enough, once the coffins come in.
You must be today where the masses will be tomorrow, namely firmly in the anti-war camp. Which happens to fit perfectly with a Christian message.
2004-06-07 15:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE]You must be today where the masses will be tomorrow, namely firmly in the anti-war camp. Which happens to fit perfectly with a Christian message.[/QUOTE]
Amen to that.
And not to mention in full accordance to the solemn pronouncements of the Pope.
I agree that the Big Oil angle is good, but we must also hammer the Shitty Little Country connection, and hard.
Walter
2004-06-07 15:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Amen to that.
And not to mention in full accordance to the solemn pronouncements of the Pope.
I agree that the Big Oil angle is good, but we must also hammer the Shitty Little Country connection, and hard.
Walter[/QUOTE]
Ditto.
2004-06-07 15:48 | User Profile
[url]http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/chtr7.htm[/url]
Students Mobilize Against the Draft
June 6, 2004
NORTH SIDE -- Students at Senn High School at 5900 N. Glenwood Ave. are taking action after hearing political leaders are talking about reinstating the draft.
A petition is circulating at the school and students are sending e-mails and writing letters to their congressmen in protest of two bills: U.S. Senate Bill 89 and House Bill 163. The bill would require all young persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 26, including women, to perform a period of military service or civilian service.
Brandi Mora, a volunteer with Amnesty International, said she was floored by the students' reaction.
"They wanted to know as much as they could because they were so upset by it," she said. "They wanted to know who they needed to write to and what they could do to stop it. I just didn't think that they would be that passionate about wanting to stop something that is really political."
Copyright é 2004, Chicago Tribune
2004-06-07 15:51 | User Profile
I am far beyond the age where the draft would have any significant personal effect. That being said, I feel compelled to add that I am growing weary of hearing/reading the whining and caterwauling that accompanies any substantive discussion of the draft. I try to avoid dating phrases such as "in my day", but it can't be avoided here so...In my day, it was considered a given that part of the price one was expected to pay for living in a free country was the donation of two years of ones life to military service. There was a certain amount of complaining in some circles, but most realized the necessity of a strong military, did their 730 days and went on with with their lives, often taking with them personally enriching memories of things most would never have experienced sans military service. There is something to be said for foreign travel at government expense and the accquisition of life long friends. I "grew up" in the Army and would not hesitate to do it all over again, if circumstances warranted/permitted.
2004-06-07 16:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OPERA96]I am far beyond the age where the draft would have any significant personal effect. That being said, I feel compelled to add that I am growing weary of hearing/reading the whining and caterwauling that accompanies any substantive discussion of the draft. I try to avoid dating phrases such as "in my day", but it can't be avoided here so...In my day, it was considered a given that part of the price one was expected to pay for living in a free country was the donation of two years of ones life to military service. There was a certain amount of complaining in some circles, but most realized the necessity of a strong military, did their 730 days and went on with with their lives, often taking with them personally enriching memories of things most would never have experienced sans military service. There is something to be said for foreign travel at government expense and the accquisition of life long friends. I "grew up" in the Army and would not hesitate to do it all over again, if circumstances warranted/permitted.[/QUOTE]
Your service is appreciated, at least on my end. I think that military service is admirable, and is usually greatly to the benefit of all.
I note that you would find the draft to have no personal effect. To many, including parents like myself, the opposite is true. My sons and daughters being drafted would have a huge personal effect, and an even greater effect on their lives. I'll suggest here that this isn't your day anymore, and it isn't even "our" day, in the sense that the civilian administration controlling our military no longer answers to any constitutional controls or to the will of the people (which is not to say that any administration in particular has done so).
I would reluctantly urge my male children to submit to a draft if I could in good conscience tell them that they would be serving their own people and their own land. That is most definitely not the case now, and I will support any sound efforts to oppose this draft. I'm not of the opinion that worse is better, and I still think change can be effected through the hearts and minds of a nation (while understanding that we are rapidly becoming less of a nation).
Opposition to a proposed draft may well bring about some needed change. Institution of a draft will most likely hasten the imminent collapse, and will put to the test the proposition that worse is better. I believe that many many if not most parents in this country agree that service to the current administration is not for the betterment of the nation or for their own family.
2004-06-07 20:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=heritagelost]The US military is under order not to accept "white racists." So if your drafted just tell them your a racist.[/QUOTE]LMAO! Thats a hell of a good point. Reminds me of watching MAS*H and the shenanigans of Maxwell Q Klinger - anyone remember that? :thumbsup:
2004-06-08 00:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]A draft that includes women, or any draft at all?
[/QUOTE]
Any draft at all. It is not politically viable. There would be civil disobedience and riots over night.
Of course this could all change if there was a huge terror attack.
2004-06-08 00:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]
As for the question of drafting women, it is more unlikely, but it is still not impossible. After all, we have a generation of suckers raised on MTV, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Tomb Raider (and Charlie's Angels for that matter.) After all, if women are really exactly so violent, aggressive, horny, and butt-kicking as men, why shouldn't they be drafted? It would be oppressing them to make them stay home. Like, didn't you see G.I. Jane? Girl Power![/QUOTE] I disagree. The cultural Marxists don't believe their own propaganda. In their heart of hearts, they know that a bunch of 115lb teenaged girls aren't going to defeat Muslim holy warriors on the field of battle. The Arabs laugh at us that we send women into combat zones in the first place...in case you haven't noticed, the Bedoins aren't exactly afraid of America.
I think that the military will split into two organizations:
There will be a combat military that is all male and overwhelmingly White, and there will be a civil service military full of fat negresses and half retarded slacker kids that make mashed potatoes, play with computers, and wear uniforms.
Its already happening...guys are recruited directly into the Special Forces these days. The Army knows that the average American soldier can't fight.
2004-06-08 05:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=weisbrot]Opposition to a proposed draft may well bring about some needed change. Institution of a draft will most likely hasten the imminent collapse, and will put to the test the proposition that worse is better. I believe that many many if not most parents in this country agree that service to the current administration is not for the betterment of the nation or for their own family.[/QUOTE]
Good analysis.
I agree that the draft would be a major stress factor on the system.
I was a year or two too young for the Vietnam draft. My older cousins and friends talked about it constantly. This was in the early '70's, and it caused a lot of pain. The main effect of the draft is that it gave nearly everybody in the country a direct stake in the war. Young men got drafted and sent to Vietnam, and their families and friends stayed at home worrying themselves sick about them. It was an "emotion multiplier", if you will.
Nixon finally ended the draft in 1973 (I think, or was it 1972?), and the drop-off in the emotion levels in the country was palpable. The campus anti-war movement was like a boiler with all guages blowing steam and the thing about to explode, and then suddenly it was as if somebody just turned off the gas.
We must always keep in mind that most folks don't think in abstract terms. They're not motivated by ideas, like most of us here are. They are motivated by their most immediate needs for food, sex, security, safety, self-esteem. Give them those things, and basically the Feds can do whatever they want.
That's the situation we face now. The Iraq war is fought by volunteers, and even though they're dying regularly over there, our media has done a bang-up job of keeping those deaths from the public eye. Out of sight, out of mind.
And so our message is simply ignored. [I]"Why bother with it, when there's an NFL game to watch? How 'bout dem Bears, hey? There's beer to swill, after all. Let's get our priorities straight here!"[/I]
The draft will turn up the heat to blowtorch level, and suddenly Joe Sixpack will be forced to pay attention. We NEED THE DRAFT in order to be heard.
And it sure looks to me that they're going to have to do it.
If they do, then our chances to be heard grow exponentially. If we could only position ourselves now to take advantage of that coming ka-BOOM.
Walter
2004-06-08 11:43 | User Profile
Here are a couple of articles on the draft from our close, personal neo-Kahn friends at [URL=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22629]WND[/URL]:
Bill would end the draft Congressman says Selective Service System unnecessary
By Jon Dougherty é 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
Because of his "philosophical" disagreement with conscription, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, introduced a bill in the House to eliminate the Selective Service System and the Selective Service Act.
The bill, known as H.R.1597, was introduced and referred to the House Armed Services Committee April 26. It has six cosponsors.
A summary of the bill has yet to be written and published either online or in print form, a spokesman said, but officials expected to complete it within a few weeks.
If passed, the bill would eliminate the Selective Service System, or SSS, and the law requiring all males to register for the draft on their 18th birthday.
Asked why Paul introduced the legislation, spokesman Jeff Deist said Paul "is certainly opposed to the draft in any way, shape or form."
"Philosophically, conscription is not something that a free society, in our view, ought to abide," he said, because it "forces a young person to go somewhere against their will."
"We also oppose it pragmatically, as the necessity of it is in question," Deist said.
The SSS has been embroiled in controversy before. In years past, political opponents of the Selective Service Act have attempted to defund the agency by as much as 60 percent -- efforts that historically have been opposed by the Pentagon.
Also, SSS officials say regardless of the United States' nearly 30-year all-volunteer army concept, begun by President Nixon in 1973 when he signed legislation ending the draft, there is still a need to maintain ready lists of draft-eligible men.
"Historically, a draft has been employed to counter foreign threats, maintain large, standing non-volunteer forces and to demonstrate U.S. resolve," Richard Flahavan, chief of governmental affairs for the Selective Service System, told WND in an August 2000 interview.
Critics are missing the big picture, Selective Service officials insist. Instead of seeing the agency as a drag on national security or as an anachronism, Americans instead should view the agency more like a fire department -- out of sight and out of mind when times are good, but ready to respond in an emergency, they say.
Flahavan said recent annual budgets have varied between $23 million and $25 million.
"The preamble of the Constitution states that, 'We the people ... [shall] provide for the common defense,'" he noted. "By including these words, the framers established the principle that protecting our nation from hostile threats is a shared responsibility that rests foremost on able-bodied Americans."
"The world is still a dangerous and uncertain place, with American forces committed to many hot spots," Flavahan noted.
Deist said the problem with a draft, or even the mechanism to implement a draft, lies in giving the federal government a tool with which to send young people off to fight in wars that may have little or no bearing on U.S. national security.
He said Paul was "very aware" of Congress' authority to "raise and support armies," but that the SSS elimination bill would do nothing to inhibit that power.
And, in the event that the U.S. were ever attacked, Deist said a draft "wouldn't be an issue" because Americans' sense of duty would cause millions to volunteer.
"If the threat is real and it's in our self-interests, then I imagine people would go voluntarily," he said.
Flavahan said some Pentagon officials believe the Selective Service System could eventually be used to draft personnel to make up for chronic recruitment shortages endemic to most all military branches -- with the exception of the Marine Corps -- though most analysts don't see that happening.
In fact, recent recruitment figures show that the Army, Navy and Air Force have again begun to meet recruitment quotas.
Opponents of the draft say that even the military doesn't envision any realistic scenario where conscription would be necessary.
Here's another:
[URL=http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15485]Selective Service debate continues[/URL] Which serves U.S. better: All-volunteer armed forces or the draft?
By Jon Dougherty é 2000 WorldNetDaily.com
Although national security is a key issue among candidates vying for the White House, one federal agency responsible for helping maintain U.S. military readiness won't see its role change much no matter who wins the presidency Nov. 7.
Through thick and thin, dangerous times and peaceful ones, the Selective Service System has remained a largely unnoticed, sometimes controversial, but important component of national defense.
Nevertheless, shrinking defense budgets coupled with proclamations of reduced foreign threats to the U.S. in the foreseeable future have led some to question whether or not the country's military draft agency should continue even to exist.
"Historically, a draft has been employed to counter foreign threats, maintain large standing non-volunteer forces and to demonstrate U.S. resolve," Richard Flahavan, chief of governmental affairs for the Selective Service System told WorldNetDaily.
Currently, American males are required to register for a military draft when they reach their 18th birthday. Any new military draft would involve young men ages 18 to 25 first.
But critics charge that in the absence of direct, predictable national security threats, the nation's all-volunteer force structure has served the country well. They say that since President Richard Nixon abolished mandatory military service in 1973, U.S. national security has not suffered because of it; the all-volunteer force structure erected in the draft's wake has always given policymakers and presidents enough manpower to get the job done.
Most recently, analysts and experts point to the 1991 Persian Gulf War as the best example yet of military readiness accomplished with an all-volunteer force. The U.S. managed to field nearly 500,000 troops as well as the ships, planes, tanks and weapons to equip them, while still maintaining forces in other parts of the world.
And -- in part because of a common perception among lawmakers and policy analysts that the U.S. is the sole remaining and undisputed superpower in the world -- there have been efforts to kill off the Selective Service System as recently as last year.
The House Appropriations subcommittee, in its initial budget recommendations for Fiscal Year 2000, proposed cutting funding for Selective Service by 60 percent, with the remaining funds earmarked to close the agency altogether. However, the measure did not survive the budget negotiations process, though closure of the agency remains a priority for some lawmakers.
The critics are missing the big picture, Selective Service officials insist. Instead of seeing the agency as a drag on national security or as an anachronism, they say, Americans instead should view the agency more like a fire department -- out of sight and out of mind when times are good, but ready to respond in an emergency.
The Pentagon also is not keen on killing off Selective Service.
On July 30, 1999, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, along with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers they were opposed to "any funding reductions of the Selective Service System" because such reductions would "compromise its ability to respond to mobilization challenges of the Department of Defense."
Two years earlier, in September 1997, Congress' auditing arm, the General Accounting Office, concluded that placing the agency in "deep standby" meant incurring additional time and resources to conduct a draft after "agency denigration," time the U.S. may not have in today's world of hyper-fast warfare. Selective Service officials noted that the study was conducted with a simple reduction of agency preparedness; it did not take into account the time and resources that would be needed if the agency was completely abolished.
And, in 1994, a joint agency task force led by the National Security Council concluded that Selective Service and peacetime registration were still required as part of overall defense strategy -- a position shared by President Clinton in 1995.
Despite the relatively small cost to maintain the agency -- Flahavan said recent annual budgets have varied between $23 million and $25 million -- as well as its vital defense role, critics still decry the agency as being a waste and, perhaps, even unconstitutional.
Responding to criticism that Selective Service and the very nature of a draft is undemocratic and unconstitutional, Flahavan said the Founding Fathers clearly envisioned a time when one would be needed to defend the nation.
"The preamble of the Constitution states that, 'We the people ... [shall] provide for the common defense,'" he noted. "By including these words, the framers established the principle that protecting our nation from hostile threats is a shared responsibility that rests foremost on able-bodied Americans."
Others have charged that with the end of the Cold War, the agency and a draft are no longer needed or envisioned.
However, he said, "the world is still a dangerous and uncertain place, with American forces committed to many hot spots." Besides, the agency points out, the U.S. has dramatically reduced the size of its standing armed forces, closed many bases and has failed to attract the "quality and numbers" of new recruits through volunteer enlistments.
In fact, Flahavan noted, some officials believe the Selective Service System could eventually be used to draft personnel to make up for chronic recruitment shortages endemic to most all military branches -- with the exception of the Marine Corps -- over the past five years or so.
"For these reasons and many others, it's prudent to maintain Selective Service registration as the nation's defense manpower insurance policy," he said.
"To abandon this system would be to place America at greater risk."
Flahavan also said that Selective Service has a positive impact on voluntary recruiting.
For one thing, he said, by having to register for the draft, young men are reminded of their potential military obligation to the country. Also, the Selective Service System provides a complete list of new registrants to the Department of Defense, which then uses it to mail recruiting information to young men. The list is also given to local recruiters for follow-up because it is "the most accurate list of young men available from any source."
Opponents of Selective Service who say that even the military doesn't envision any realistic scenario where a draft would be necessary are possibly misinformed, the agency said.
For instance, the Army -- the service most likely to need draftees in a crisis -- is currently short about 7,000 recruits; the most recent figures said it could fall 10,000 recruits short of its congressionally mandated strength of 480,000 personnel by the end of Fiscal Year 2000.
At a cost of about $12,000 per recruit, the "all-volunteer Army is becoming increasingly expensive to maintain," the agency said, so "the prospect of a limited draft to make up for what recruiters are unable to fill is an option being explored."
The Army is similarly concerned about a shortage of doctors, nurses and medical technicians, said the agency. "In a war with mass casualties, the Army may have no option but to ask for a draft of health-care personnel to fill vacancies" -- an option that was being explored as early as 1996.
Opponents are also critical of the fact that only men have to register. In an increasingly gender-integrated military, they argue, women should be made to register as well.
In fact, the agency said that when President Carter revived military draft registration in 1980, he asked Congress to mandate male and female registration. But Congress refused, citing a Department of Defense policy against placing women in combat. The policy has since been challenged in court, but in 1981, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could exclude women from having to register.
"However, should Congress ever change this policy, Selective Service is fully capable of responding," Flahavan said.
Women could be drafted -- perhaps as nurses, doctors and medical personnel -- without being required to register, the agency said.
Jon E. Dougherty is the author of "Illegals: The Imminent Threat Posed by Our Unsecured U.S.-
2004-06-08 12:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Johnathan] I think that the military will split into two organizations:
There will be a combat military that is all male and overwhelmingly White, and there will be a civil service military full of fat negresses and half retarded slacker kids that make mashed potatoes, play with computers, and wear uniforms.
I don't think there will be two distinct organizations. I think they will just draft women into the same types of postions that women are filling now, which does not include combat, but which does include combat support. As Jessica Lynch demonstrated, combat support is not entirely without risk.
[QUOTE=Johnathan] Its already happening...guys are recruited directly into the Special Forces these days. The Army knows that the average American soldier can't fight.[/QUOTE] True. White guys, to be more specific. All US elite special forces units are overwhelmingly white.
2004-06-08 12:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]Any draft at all. It is not politically viable. There would be civil disobedience and riots over night.
Of course this could all change if there was a huge terror attack.[/QUOTE] Oh, I don't know. After all, how many times have we been told that "911 changed everything"? And if everything starts to change back, I'm sure it wouldn't be out of the question for another terrorist attack to take place.
2004-06-08 17:25 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Johnathan]II think that the military will split into two organizations:
There will be a combat military that is all male and overwhelmingly White, and there will be a civil service military full of fat negresses and half retarded slacker kids that make mashed potatoes, play with computers, and wear uniforms.
Its already happening...guys are recruited directly into the Special Forces these days. The Army knows that the average American soldier can't fight.[/QUOTE]
They- women and minorities- will be the functionaries in the "system administrative" half of the armed forces envisioned by Thomas Barnett; this proposal is being slavered over by neocons such as Michael Barone and, apparently, the civilian Likudniks running the Pentagon:
[url]http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_040520.htm[/url] *After September 11, the hostility of the Chinese forces that brought down the reconnaissance plane in early 2001 seemed a very minor threat. And the forces of terrorism, operating from the gap, seemed a huge threat.
To deal with these, Barnett says we need two kinds of military forces. One he calls "leviathan" (Power Point briefs are full of kicky names), a relatively small body of fierce warriors, heavily weighted to special-forces teamsââ¬âthe kind of forces that achieved such speedy victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. And not just speedy victories, also victories won with exceedingly low casualty rates by any historic standard and, thanks to precision weapons, with very low civilian casualty rates as compared with the horrific wars of the 20th century. Leviathan forces will be doing what we did in Iraq between March 19 and May 1, 2003.
But we need very much larger forces, set apart from the warriors, of what Barnett calls system administrators or sys admins. "The sys admin force will be civil affairs-oriented and network-centric," Barnett writes, "an always-on, always-nearby, always-approachable resource for allies and friends in need." They will be doing most of the things our military forces have been doing or have been trying to do in Iraq since May 1, 2003.
The leviathan force, Barnett predicts, can grow smaller over time, given the advantages it has in precision weapons and high skills; he sides with Rumsfeld and against the retired generals who criticized the relatively small numbers of troops in the advance into Iraq. But the sys admins will have to get more numerous. We have more troops in Iraq now than we did in March and April 2003, and Barnett joins others, like Sen. John McCain and analyst Robert Kagan, who think we should have many more. The result is a transformed military. "Over time, the defense budget's top line will remain relatively flat, growing only with inflation. Within a generation, the sys admin force will command the majority of the defense budget, taking advantage of the continuous transformation that the leviathan force pursues, making this fighting force ever smaller, more lethal, and more decisive in application."*
also see: [url]http://www.antiwar.com/kwiatkowski/?articleid=2762[/url]
2004-06-08 17:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=weisbrot] But we need very much larger forces, set apart from the warriors, of what Barnett calls system administrators or sys admins. "The sys admin force will be civil affairs-oriented and network-centric," Barnett writes, "an always-on, always-nearby, always-approachable resource for allies and friends in need." They will be doing most of the things our military forces have been doing or have been trying to do in Iraq since May 1, 2003. [/QUOTE] Taken for granted here is the unspoken assumption that we should have "an always-on, always-nearby, always-approachable resource for allies and friends in need." I wonder how many soldiers would be required to mind our own borders and our own business?
2004-06-09 12:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=weisbrot]They- women and minorities- will be the functionaries in the "system administrative" half of the armed forces envisioned by Thomas Barnett; this proposal is being slavered over by neocons such as Michael Barone and, apparently, the civilian Likudniks running the Pentagon:[/QUOTE]
That was an important link, I recommend it to all here.
This current war will force the delusional neocons to confront the insanity of the current military system.
Women in combat units are great if you're trying to undermine society and key institutions like the Army, but they're bad if you're actually trying to win the war.
Women must play a purely supporting role, like the WACS and WAVES of old. The men fight, the women support. Blurring that line for PeeCee reasons undermine the chain of command and ultimately lose wars.
I don't think they've actually dealt with the dissonance of wanting to win the war with their continuing war on white society and white institutions, but they'll smack up against that wall sooner or later.
Walter
2004-06-10 11:05 | User Profile
DELETED FOR REASONS OF DUPLICATION
2004-06-10 11:13 | User Profile
I just posted a reply in this thread, and it shows up when I click on "New Posts," but the post isn't here when I check the actual thread....so I'm re-posting it.
[QUOTE=weisbrot][url]http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/chtr7.htm[/url]A petition is circulating at the school and students are sending e-mails and writing letters to their congressmen in protest of two bills: U.S. Senate Bill 89 and House Bill 163. The bill would require all young persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 26, including women, to perform a period of military service or civilian service.[/QUOTE]
Any neo-"conservative," country club Yuppie faggots try and draft my little girl (not that I have a daughter, and my son only just turned six), I will personally find out the home addresses of all my local draft board members and subsequently visit and murder each and every ****ing last one of them! I feel bad for saying that, as I sort of told Tex I'd try not to make such strident comments in the future, but damn it, it just had to be said! I find it difficult to believe Tex feels all that differently on the subject, or that any actual man possibly could. Conscript and send my daughter to Iraq? Over my LITERALLY dead body! I'd send my son to Canada too, of course, but the idea of forcing my daughter to be a soldider just make me so angry I'm having a difficult time not screaming this very instant!!! Who the Hell do these Jews think they are???
2004-06-10 11:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]I'm not so sure I wouldn't refuse to go and refuse to run. Let them start filling prisons with 100,000 persons refusing to support some imperialist drive.[/QUOTE]
I'll be too old to get drafted in 15 months (unless they raise the age limit and besides, they always take the young guys first) but I actually find myself wishing I were younger, so I could force them to imprison me.
[quote=all old right]The EC and neocons had taken over just about everything by 1980. Their were still some hardcore in, but they were getting pushed out quickly. Most of the guys who trained me were the "old crew". those guys knew what they were doing, but they played pretty hard. One night(according to the story), they got drunk and chased a guy(some EC, I think) up a tree, barking like hounds. Crazy guys, but you could trust them with your life.
What's an EC?
2004-06-10 11:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=All Old Right]I think you'd be asking for the Abu Grabby treatment by doing so, waiting that late.
You are probably correct, but I'd take that chance. I'd rather be sodomized with a night stick and urinated on by dykes than used as cannon fodder in Hymie's war, if those were the dismal choices I were presented with. I'm not trying to sound like a tough guy here; I just feel very strongly about this.
2004-06-10 11:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OPERA96]I am far beyond the age where the draft would have any significant personal effect. That being said, I feel compelled to add that I am growing weary of hearing/reading the whining and caterwauling that accompanies any substantive discussion of the draft. I try to avoid dating phrases such as "in my day", but it can't be avoided here so...In my day, it was considered a given that part of the price one was expected to pay for living in a free country was the donation of two years of ones life to military service.[/QUOTE]
We don't live in a free country anymore and we have no business being in Iraq. Nostalgia is no excuse for being a dupe.
2004-06-10 11:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=heritagelost]The US military is under order not to accept "white racists." So if your drafted just tell them your a racist.[/QUOTE]
They're not supposed to take drug users either, but that didn't stop them in Vietnam. Of course, convicted felonious "hate" criminals and bona fide members of the National Alliance since 1996, such as myself, will probably be able to use that loophole. The rest of you are on your own....
2004-06-10 16:03 | User Profile
I doubt there will be a draft. It's both unnecessary and unpopular. The modern military is decreasingly dependant on manpower (thanks to mondern technology) and more aggressive recruiting could easily bring in a lot more people.
And, for those of you who are going to play the racist card to stay out, Kevin is right, it isn't going to work.
2004-06-10 16:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]I doubt there will be a draft. It's both unnecessary and unpopular. The modern military is decreasingly dependant on manpower (thanks to mondern technology) and more aggressive recruiting could easily bring in a lot more people.
And, for those of you who are going to play the racist card to stay out, Kevin is right, it isn't going to work.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't be so sure about the unnecessary part. I heard a couple days ago that they have reactivated some of the Individual Ready Reserves, that are basically guys retired from the regular reserves, but who still technically owe Uncle Same some time. On the radio I heard an interview with a 50-year old guy who got his reactivation, and was in Iraq in less than two weeks.
2004-06-10 16:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]...I will personally find out the home addresses of all my local draft board members and subsequently visit and murder each and every ****ing last one of them! [/QUOTE]
Have you shared the specifics of this plan with your parole officer?
And, if so, what were his thoughts on the matter?
Thank you for your attention.
2004-06-10 18:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]And, for those of you who are going to play the racist card to stay out, Kevin is right, it isn't going to work. [/QUOTE]
Try to give a few wrong answers on the psychological test. If you are also high on the IQ test, this [B]will[/B] work, guaranteed. No army wants psychologically unstable types with a high IQ.
All you need is to come off as a [I]real[/I] liability. The tricky thing is not to overdo it, or an intelligent psychologist may see through it. :D