Rep. Rangel will seek to reinstitute the draft.

[Route66Kid]

I hope that he succeeds this time.  It will sure ease our military manpower deficit.  

I retired from the Naval Reserve almost seven years ago after 21 1/2 years of service.  I received a recruiting flyer in the mail last week from the Army.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/11/19/rep_rangel_will_seek_to_reinstate_draft?mode=PF

Rep. Rangel will seek to reinstate draft

By John Heilprin, Associated Press Writer  |  November 19, 2006

WASHINGTON --Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.

In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.

Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the Nov. 7 election.

At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," said Rangel, who also proposed a draft in January 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Standby Reserve, said he agreed that the U.S. does not have enough people in the military.

"I think we can do this with an all-voluntary service, all-voluntary Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. And if we can't, then we'll look for some other option," said Graham, who is assigned as a reserve judge to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

Rangel, the next chairman of the House tax-writing committee, said he worried the military was being strained by its overseas commitments.

"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said.

He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.

Graham said he believes the all-voluntary military "represents the country pretty well in terms of ethnic makeup, economic background."

Repeated polls have shown that about seven in 10 Americans oppose reinstatement of the draft and officials say they do not expect to restart conscription.

Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress in June 2005 that "there isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back."

Yet the prospect of the long global fight against terrorism and the continuing U.S. commitment to stabilizing Iraq have kept the idea in the public's mind.

The military drafted conscripts during the Civil War, both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. An agency independent of the Defense Department, the Selective Service System trains, keeps an updated registry of men age 18-25 -- now about 16 million -- from which to supply untrained draftees that would supplement the professional all-volunteer armed forces.

Rangel and Graham appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS.

------

[Cubs]

I surely hope you are joking in supporting this.

[MH2010]

Go Democrat Go.

[Route66Kid]

quote:Originally posted by Cubs

I surely hope you are joking in supporting this.

Why would I be?  We are after all engaged in a global war on terror, are we not?  It is time to put the nation on a real war footing.  Part of doing so is to reinstitute the military draft.  I as said above, it will erase our military manpower deficit, an issue that is going to have to be addressed preferably sooner than later.  

Do you have a problem with supporting the military and/or its mission?

[makelifebetter4ok]

McCain: We need more troops.

Kissinger:  "If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible."

___________________________________


Past War Games Foresaw Iraq Problems
Associated Press | November 06, 2006

WASHINGTON - The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might ensue.

In its "Desert Crossing" games, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence officials assumed the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.

The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by the George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.

"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."

There are currently about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak of about 160,000 in January.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.

The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:

-"A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."

-"Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic - especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."

-"Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."

-"The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."

-"Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."

-"A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."

_________________________________

InsideDefense.com NewsStand | Elaine M. Grossman | November 10, 2006

A small group of officers assembled by Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to draw up alternatives to the U.S. military strategy in Iraq is expected to conclude its work in December, according to defense sources. Some observers anticipate the recommendations will call for a dramatic change of course in the Persian Gulf nation and perhaps in the war on terrorism more broadly.

The post-Election Day resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld may be a strong indication that a sharp turn in Iraq strategy is in the offing, according to experts.

The Joint Staff review is being carried out in extraordinary secrecy. A spokesman for Pace said this week the group has no formal name but its role is "to assess what's working and what's not working" in Iraq and beyond. The spokesman did not respond by press time (Nov. to a number of follow-up questions posed by a reporter.

Pace's exploration of Iraq alternatives comes as a congressionally mandated study group, co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), is conducting an independent review of the strategy to combat the insurgency and sectarian violence in the war-torn nation.

Some experts speculate the Marine Corps general decided to convene his own panel to develop new alternatives for Iraq in case the Baker-Hamilton "Iraq Study Group" offers recommendations the military or the Bush administration find unacceptable.

President Bush's selection of former CIA chief Robert Gates -- a member of the Baker-Hamilton panel -- to replace Rumsfeld could have interesting repercussions if Pace's findings differ significantly from those of the Iraq Study Group.

But, following a midterm election in which Democrats retook control of the House and possibly the Senate, Bush signaled he is ready for at least some amount of change.

"Stay the course means let's get the job done, but it doesn't mean, you know, staying stuck on a strategy or tactics that may not be working," Bush said yesterday (Nov. in announcing Rumsfeld's departure. "I'm assessing, as well, all the time [the question of] do we have the right people in the right place, the right strategy. As you know, we're constantly changing tactics, and that requires constant assessment."

Bush held a second press conference later in the afternoon to introduce Gates as his nominee for defense secretary.

"As part of [the Baker-Hamilton] commission, [Gates] has traveled to Iraq and met with the country's leaders and our military commanders on the ground," Bush said. "He will provide the department with a fresh perspective and new ideas on how America can achieve our goals in Iraq."

For his part, Pace asked each of the services in September to temporarily detail to his review group their best mid-level strategists with experience in Iraq, defense sources tell Inside the Pentagon.

Participants include Army Col. H.R. McMaster, who until earlier this year commanded a cavalry regiment that pacified the Iraqi insurgent stronghold of Tall Afar, though violence has since returned to that town. Another team member is Army Col. Peter Mansoor, who directs an Army-Marine Corps counterinsurgency school at Fort Leavenworth, KS. The Marine Corps reportedly has sent Col. Thomas Greenwood, director of the Marine Command and Staff College, and the other services are represented on the study team, as well.

The Joint Staff strategy review kicked off in late September and was originally slated to last 60 days, though it now appears work will continue into December, according to officials familiar with the group who are not authorized to speak for it.

Since the review began, the security situation in Iraq has further deteriorated. At least 105 U.S. personnel were killed in October, the fourth-deadliest month since the war began in 2003. By the end of last month, 2,818 U.S. troops had died in combat in Iraq.

Pace is trying to determine why Iraqi security has not improved despite the addition of more than 300,000 Iraqi security forces over the past two years, Time reported late last month.

Among the top ranks of the military, there is a growing consensus that more U.S. troops are needed to crush the insurgency and cultivate the support of an Iraqi public that is not yet convinced American forces will win, a number of well placed sources say.

But that view is increasingly out of step with lawmakers and the American public, where pressure is mounting to establish "benchmarks" for the withdrawal of some or all U.S. troops.

Back at the Pentagon, Pace's group of colonels is taking a wide-ranging approach, examining holistically the strategies for securing Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as fighting the broader war on terror, defense sources tell ITP.

The results may prove surprising, some say. The Pace group is headed toward making some bold and unconventional recommendations -- ones that may demand consensus across party lines as Bush struggles to work with newly empowered Democrats in Congress. The president and a variety of lawmakers have staked out opposing positions on troop levels for Iraq and what their objectives and strategy should be.

If the various political factions dig in their heels on their respective concepts for Iraq, they might yet all agree on one thing: that the Pace recommendations are politically naive and dead on arrival, some officials warned.

Another risk Pace faces is that the new defense secretary or members of Congress will cherry-pick only some of his recommendations for implementation, potentially leaving the military with a watered-down version of a new strategy that would only work if carried out in toto, sources said.

Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for Pace downplayed the group's role in assessing new options for Iraq.

"Working groups are convened for a variety of issues and the prosecution of GWOT [the global war on terror] is one of those issues," according to Army Reserve Lt. Col. Diane Battaglia, a Joint Staff spokeswoman. "The former commanders may meet with this working group and discuss their experiences and insights as it pertains to the GWOT, but this is not an 'Iraq Strategy' specific group."

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by Route66Kid

Why would I be?  We are after all engaged in a global war on terror, are we not?  It is time to put the nation on a real war footing.  Part of doing so is to reinstitute the military draft.  I as said above, it will erase our military manpower deficit, an issue that is going to have to be addressed preferably sooner than later.  

Do you have a problem with supporting the military and/or its mission?

Or, it will cause some of our best and brightest to flee the country. [:O]

[MH2010]

Or it will cause our military effectiveness to go way down because people don't want to be there.

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by Cubs

I surely hope you are joking in supporting this.

Freedom isn't free, and these colors don't bleed.  Are you proposing to let the terrorists win?  America: love it or leave it.

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by Kiah
America: love it or leave change it for the better.

There, fixed that for you.

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

quote:Originally posted by Kiah
America: love it or leave change it for the better.

There, fixed that for you.

What the ?!?!  Don't you know America's jingoes are sacrosanct?!?!?

[papaspot]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

quote:Originally posted by Kiah
America: love it or leave change it for the better.

There, fixed that for you.

If I had a smiley that was clapping and cherring wildly, I would post it in response to this post.

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by Kiah
What the ?!?!  Don't you know America's jingoes are sacrosanct?!?!?

[]

[Route66Kid]

quote:Or, it will cause some of our best and brightest to flee the country. [:O]

What if it does?

[Route66Kid]

quote:Originally posted by MH2010

Or it will cause our military effectiveness to go way down because people don't want to be there.

I doubt it would cause any significant drop in effectiveness because we already have people serving who don't want to be there, who have had their enlistments involuntarily extended, who have been called back from the IRR, who have had their deployments involuntarily extended, and who are going on their third tours in Iraq:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061118/D8LFAIP00.html

Conscription would give the Army a better cross section of American society and encourage enlistment in the other services.  

If there is ever a military emergency necessitating a sustained commitment of force, we may have no choice but to reinstitute the draft.

[Route66Kid]

For any unsuspecting health care professionals, the Medical Draft has always been in standby mode:

http://www.sss.gov/FSmedical.htm

MEDICAL DRAFT IN STANDBY MODE

The Health Care Personnel Delivery System (HCPDS) is a standby plan developed for the Selective Service System at the request of Congress. If needed it would be used to draft health care personnel in a crisis. It is designed to be implemented in connection with a national mobilization in an emergency, and then only if Congress and the President approve the plan and pass and sign legislation to enact it. No portion of the plan is designed for implementation in peacetime. If implemented, HCPDS would:

Provide a fair and equitable draft of doctors, nurses, medical technicians and those with certain other health care skills if, in some future emergency, the military's existing medical capability proved insufficient and there is a shortage of volunteers.

Include women, unless directed otherwise by Congress and the President.

Draft a very small percentage of America's health care providers into military service. Impact on the availability of civilian health care would be minimal. Those health-care workers whose absence would seriously hurt their communities would be deferred on the basis of community essentiality.

Begin a mass registration of male and female health care workers between the ages of 20 and 45. They would register at local post offices. HCPDS would provide medical personnel from a pool of 3.4 million doctors, nurses, specialists and allied health professionals in more than 60 fields of medicine.

Require minimal training for HCPDS draftees, because they are already skilled personnel.