[b]There's only one way the American people will accept the reinstatement of the draft. There would have to be "a massive casualty-producing event" on American soil.
There's simply no other way Bush can get the popular support needed.
And, since we're able to figure that out, it's certain that White House planners-and-schemers have figured it out, too. This sets us up for some very ugly scenarios, including the possibility that we'll be seeing more terrorist "events" sometime in the near future.[/b]
We're hearing stories almost daily about how "stretched" the military is. A recent army survey discovered that only half the soldiers are planning to re-enlist. Elaine Monaghan reports from the Times of London that: "The US military is fighting desertion, recruitment shortfalls and legal challenges from its own troops."
She also notes that, "a further sign of strain can be seen in the Army's decision this year to mobilize 5,600 members of a pool of former soldiers that can be mobilized only in a national emergency," and that, "Forty per cent of the 138,000 (National Guard) troops in Iraq are part-timers who never expected to be sent to the front line."
These are signs that the military is understaffed, demoralized and seriously overextended. It needs more "warm bodies" to fill their depleted ranks, and it needs them soon. The state of affairs in Iraq is quickly deteriorating. The siege in Falluja did nothing to quell the insurgency, and for all practical purposes, the situation is getting worse. Stop loss rules have been enacted, forcing soldiers to stay in the military well beyond their original commitment, and tours of duty have been extended for everyone presently in uniform.
Those who watched CBS, 60 Minutes last Sunday saw how the Defense Dept has even called a 55 year old woman back to duty to serve in Iraq. These are signs of desperation, and a clear indication that the draft will be reinstated.
Casualties in Iraq are also high, increasing the pressure on the Pentagon to come up with more men. Consider the comments of Paul Craig Roberts in a recent Counterpunch article: "According to the US military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, the hospital has treated 20,802 US troops for injuries received in Iraq. According to the Pentagon's figures, 54% of the wounded are too seriously injured to return to their units. If that figure is correct, it would mean that the insurgents have put 11,233 US troops out of action. Add in the 1,254 US troops who have been killed for a total of 12,487. [b]That's 9% of our total force in Iraq and a much higher percentage of our combat force."
9% in less than two years. If that doesn't show how badly the war in Iraq is going, then this will. Roberts says that the Pentagon has begin "redeploying the disabled" because "we have no more troops to throw at the few thousand lightly armed Iraqi insurgents who have tied down eight US divisions."
"Redeploying the disabled"? Are you kidding me? [/b]
Ironically, the plight of the falling dollar also creates greater urgency for a draft. Part of the Bush plan was to underwrite America's enormous $7 trillion debt by controlling the world's oil. The administration wizards figured that the tax cuts and lavish defense spending would be offset by a quick wrap-up of the Iraq conflict. Foreign countries would then be forced to carry our debt because we would have shown our determination to control the world's oil.
It hasn't worked that way. American forces are bogged down and the flow of oil from Iraq is erratic at best. Youssef Ibrahim says in a recent Znet article that the Iraq war has "resulted in the loss of an average of 2 million barrels a day of Iraqi oil from world markets;" a major factor in the dramatic fluctuations we've seen in the last few months. Add to that, the fact that the US is spending nearly $1.6 Billion per month on military operations and you have a formula for a major economic disaster.
So, both the military and economic situations demonstrate the need for a draft; and not just a draft, but a full mobilization of 500,000 to 1,000,000 men. (Keep in mind the saber-rattling with Iran, Syria and North Korea.)
Draft Boards; Ready to Go
An article in Z Magazine's Nov issue "A Military Draft" outlines the extent to which the SSS (Selective Service System) is gearing up for a draft. The SSS has already admitted that it is "designing procedures" for a "skills draft", that is, a draft that would target ages 18 to 34 for jobs where there are immediate shortages. ("truck drivers, mechanics, engineers, computer specialists")
The highest level officials in the SSS have produced an "Issue Paper" that recommends sweeping changes to the current system. The first of these recommendations is: "Change the very mission of the SSS to become a massive conscription service in the war on terror for the entire government".
Another recommendation: "Create a massive data base of virtually every young American age 18 to 34. This database would be used to draft in war and to recruit in peacetime. State and even local governments would be given access to the names for recruitment and help in emergencies".
For years the SSS has operated at a minimal level. Now things are in high gear. "The SSS Performance Plan for 2004"will: "Ensure a mobilization infrastructure of 56 State Headquarters, 442 Area Offices and 1,980 Local Boards are operational within 75 days of an authorized return to conscription."
"If the Administration asks for reinstatement on April 1, Congress could pass it that night and the first batch of more than 1 million 20 year olds would face the national lottery as soon as June 15." (Z Magazine, Nov 2004)
$28 million has been (covertly) diverted from other programs to get the SSS up-and-running. Nearly $8 million was spent on "Increasing the effectiveness of the Manpower Delivery Systems". In other words, how to get your son quickly into a uniform and off to Iraq.
No minute detail has escaped the attention of the SSS. Even the procedures for processing Conscientious Objectors (now, called Alternate Service) is covered in excruciating detail. Overall, it's proof-positive that Washington understands that present troop levels are unsustainable and is preparing for a draft.
Right now, the SSS is 95% ready for the "Combat Induction Process" to begin. All that's needed is the word from Bush to set things in motion. The "trigger mechanism" will probably come in the form of a "massive casualty-producing event" on American soil. The return of the draft is just the first of the changes we can expect from such a catastrophe.
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: [email]firstname.lastname@example.org[/email]
1. Z Magazine, Nov, 2004; "A Military Draft"; from blatanttruth.org; pages 5-7
[quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Dec 20 2004, 11:44 AM
[b] Bitonti - honestly, how much military history have you studied? [/b][/quote]
You don't need to be an expert to realize that the Army Reserves and National Guard are falling significantly short of their recruitment goals because people do not want to go to Iraq. Whether this will lead to a draft, I don't know, but it's certainly not a good sign.
What is it about your lives that is so horrible? Why do people feel the need to whine and exaggerate and shriek all the time? Honestly, people here think Bush is the friggin devil himself, and that the "neo-cons" are sole reason for everything that is wrong with the world. Bitonti literally blames them for the weather!
I can see disagreeing or whatever, but it seems like anti-Bush people are just so full of childish emotional rage, based on nothing more than frustration. I mean, you guys should take some time to read the nonsense that appears on this forum from time to time. It's literally hilarious.
His f*cking signature?? I mean, are you guys serious? And you have the temerity to call other people sheeple?
It's one thing to be ignorant. It is quite another to not realize it....
[quote][b]It's one thing to be ignorant. It is quite another to not realize it.... [/b][/quote]
5E, it looks like we have to respectully disagree here...again.
For all we ask of the soldiers and all they sacrifice, is a true signature from Rumy too much to ask for the families of those that sacrificed the most?
What is it, an average of 10 signatures a week?
Also, if it was really "no big deal", why did some of these families complain and why did Rumsfeld say "it won't happen again" :o
No, it isn't a earth-shattering story. A fake signature or true signature won't change won't happened to these valiant men and women, but I think a small, sincere gesture (true signature) wouldn't be too much to ask from Rumsfeld.
I have to add my two cents opinion here- If I lost a loved one or friend in this war the least you can expect is more than a rubber stamp signature from the leaders that put them in that position.
Rumsfeld has to find the time to put his own signature and personally hand written letter to each person's family for their service- it is the right thing to do
[b]bit[/b] - Could you get a more slanted viewpoint? This is as bad as West Coast Mole's articles from Russia that 1 to 10 of thousands of soldiers were dying daily in Iraq when the war started. Should I goto Army Times and find the retention raters published in there were it is not 50% like this article mentions?
what does this article say that isn't true? there is no public support for a draft but the gov't is still moving toward one... 5ever military history is a hobby it's not like i got my PhD in the subject - i do know enough to know you can't properly fight guerilla warfare without adequate troop numbers...
i have a serious question - today George Bush said he thought Rumseld was "just fine" as SecDef... do you agree with that statement?
[quote][i]Originally posted by PFSIKH[/i]@Dec 20 2004, 05:15 PM
[b] Should I goto Army Times and find the retention raters published in there were it is not 50% like this article mentions? [/b][/quote]
please do... and while you are researching you can ask soldiers who did serve like Vinny025 how many of his collegues are re-enlisting when their term is up... some anecdotal evidence for ya...
If I'm drafted, would I be fighting for my country, for Bush's legacy or to defend the capitalist profit motive? And if it's not for my country, do Bush's legacy and/or the capitalist profit motive have a cool flag I can be buried under?
[quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Dec 23 2004, 09:11 AM
[b] what's the alternative? we are losing men every day in an endless battle againt "terror"
nothing like war on an open-ended concept - yeah history sure has proven those to be successful [/b][/quote]
Bitonti, with all due respect, what the hell are you talking about? "Open-ended concepts" didn't bomb that mess hall the other day...[i]actual terrorists[/i] did.
I know that you love your buzzwords and quick talking points and over-simplifications, but they get tiresome.....
Reading posts here sometimes feels like a Mad Libs where you guys just choose from a list of words/phrases like "Halliburton, oil, imperialism, root-causes, neo-con, Vietnam, quagmire, history has shown...., savages, capitalism, sovreign nation, puppet, tax cuts for the wealthy, global warming, renewable resources, SUVs, Israel, Treaty of Westphalia, the entire world hates us, Abu Ghraib, illegal war, Bush's war, Bush lied, Cheney eats babies, etc."
yeh it's real convenient to talk about buzzwords when the WMD that you _all_ swore were there turned out to be out-and-out bull**** - you want to talk about the treaty of west. something we brought up a year and a half ago why don't we talk about the fraudulent lead-up to war?
im trying to keep the discussion forward looking - you would rather look back then lets look back buddy!
as for the bombing now FoxNews is saying it could have been an inside job
that's the problem - being an ACTUAL terrorist is often times a transient notion
one minute a guy is our soldier the next he is a terrorist? kinda makes fighting these ACTUAL terrorists a little complex, NO?
alot of these "terrorists" were just regular Iraqi citizens before we came along and bombed the s**t out of their country - the even more distrurbing thing is that more people "become" terrorists every day - the number is getting larger, not smaller.
if it was an inside job then what has happened but our own forces have switched over to being ACTUAL terrorists
you would rather talk about semantics then what is actually occuring on a daily basis
FACT: s**t is getting WORSE not better
FACT: no one really gives a s**t about the freedom of Iraq, about building a democracy there
it's a f--king sham - how's that for a couple buzzwords?
[quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Dec 23 2004, 08:23 AM
[b] "capitalist profit motive?" - do you guys even realize how absurd you sound? [/b][/quote]
When are we going to go in and "save" Mogadishu?
[quote][i]Originally posted by TomShane+Dec 23 2004, 10:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (TomShane @ Dec 23 2004, 10:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-jets5ever[/i]@Dec 23 2004, 08:23 AM
[b] "capitalist profit motive?" - do you guys even realize how absurd you sound? [/b][/quote]
When are we going to go in and "save" Mogadishu? [/b][/quote]
[b]TS[/b] - What the hell are you talking about, what is your point? Let me guess, the only reason we aren't in country X and are in Iraq is because of oil, right? Is that your oh-so-witty way of saying "no blood for oil!!!" If that's the cause, why haven't we invaded Argentina or Canada...both of which would be much easier to conquer and occupy? (Yes, my statement makes just as little sense as yours does)
[b]Bitonti[/b] - first, the WMD thing was not "out and out b-s." I have gone over this too many times to count. You are totally misrepresenting the issue (which is your right, but don't expect me to respect it). The notion that Bush was the only person to think Saddam had WMD, or that Bush knew for a fact that Saddam didn't and still said so anyway is so false and absurd as to immediately disqualify anyone who clings to it from participation in a serious discussion about the Iraq War. Go back and read one of my zillion posts on this topic, I don't have energy to re-type or go find them myself. It's sad that you guys cling to this "Bush lied about WMD" line, or the fantastic notion that Bush invented the WMD issue out of thin air.
You talk about being forward-looking all the time - yet bring up history all the time. But if someone else brings up history, you tell them to be forward-looking. Yet, for all of your piercing foresight, you basically shriek about every twist and turn in the war and are convinced that things will NEVER get better. Some forward-looking visionary you are..."OMIGOD, 1200 US soldiers have died...it's a lost cause!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
How do you know that a lot of these terrorists were just "normal" Iraqi citizens prior to the war? That is an opinion you've formed based on what is likely 0.005% of all necessary knowlede, and even that small amount of knowledge has been relayed to you devoid of almost any contextual analysis. You talk about there being "more" terrorists now, as if you have any f*cking CLUE about the total aggregate # of terrorists before and after, orwhat the trend is. You make sweeping, declarative statements based on nothing more than hunches and what you feel is correct, or on your arm-chair "analysis" of one data point that may or may not even actually be what you think it is. Maybe it was an inside job, maybe it wasn't. We have captured or killed thousands of these terrorists...many of them are also supported by Iran and Syria. If there was no Iraq War going on, what do you think people like Al Zarquawi would be doing right now...selling shoes? What about the likelihood that the amount of Iraqis who are opening businesses, joining the police forces and otherwise participating in their reconstruction greatly outnumbers the amount who are trying to blow up mess halls or shoot Iraqi children while they wait on line for candy? What about the recent poll in Iraq that states that an overwhelming majority of citizens do not support the insurgents?
If it was an inside job, your conclusion is one of several possibilities, and IMO not even close to the most likely. Inside jobs tend to be done by people who have always been on one side and who join the other side undetected, wait around to gain trust and access to senstive places or information, and then pull off their job, which had been their intention all along, priot to joining. Kind of like how cops infiltrate the mob, or go undercover for a while. It does not necessarily mean some passionate, pro-America soldier just got mad enough to bomb a mess hall. That is a wild leap, even for you.
Saying something is "worse" is not stating a fact, unless you are dealing with something that is quantifiably measurable, or, perhaps reliably measurable. Face it - you have hardly any knowledge or context to make a statement like that. Yes, the mess hall bombing is awful. But reading CNN.com every day doesn't make you informed as to what is going on as a whole over there, or how it is trending.
Your other "fact" is so flimsly that it doesn't even merit a reply. "No one gives a sh*t" The terrorists sure seem to give a sh*t? Why do you think they attack OTHER IRAQIS? Why do they blow up Iraqi children? If someone invaded the USA, would you fight that occupier by blowing up American kids on line for candy?
What about your doomsday scenarios and predictions about Afghanistan? Do you think things are betting "better" there, do you think anyone cares about freedom there? Let me guess - Karzai only controls Kabul, the rest of the country is a wild, savage-ridden land controlled by tribes and the Taliban, it's actually worse now, they grow opium there which proves your point about it being a quagmire, there are more AQ there now than before, yead yada yada....typical.
Why is the Iraq War a sham? What's the real reason we're in Iraq, Matt? Enlighten me, please. Also - why did we invade Afghanistan? What's the "truth" of that war? I'm only a sheep, I don't have the insight or the ability to subvert the dominant paradigm that you and TS have? Wait, hold on...something is coming to me...how about this, "Bush Lied, People Died!!!" Ah...I feel so intelligent now...I should follow this up with some disparaging remarks about Bush's intellect, and the fact that he hates women, gays, blacks, dancing...and then maybe close with something about the Kyoto Accord.
[quote][b]Why is the Iraq War a sham? What's the real reason we're in Iraq, Matt? Enlighten me, please. [/b][/quote]
it is a sham because we have no clear goals and no exit strategy - terror isn't ever going to stop - so what, we have to fight endlessly? guys like CBNY say "as long as it takes" - that's nothing but a euphemism for "forever."
[b]you are an economist, what do you think decades of spendthrift war funding will result in for the USA? [/b]
as for afghanistan you answered your own question - relatively speaking we haven't rebuilt a damn thing - yes outside of kabul it's controlled by warlords - yes 50% of the economy is based on Poppy - that's the reality on the ground, im not making this up.
as for Iraq i didn't say that it was our soldiers i said it was our forces - there is a difference - when we hire an Iraqi and make him a policeman then technically, until there is a legitimate puppet gov't in place ( ;) ) that man is one of OUR FORCES. i don't think it was a soldier i think it was more likely someone hired by the US in a support capacity. Please don't put words into my mouth.
as a general comment you love to dismiss my hunches and gut instincts in search of "FACT" but face it George when there are no real FACTS out there the best we have are hunches and gut instincts. you ask me where are the aggregate terrorist numbers - i can mockingly ask you the same thing when George Bush says it's getting better over there - if there is no proof it's getting worse then sure as s**t there's no proof it's getting better. all we have is anecdotal evidence - a poll you say? a poll that they love us? well then i guess it must be getting better. :lol: listen to yourself before you start swinging the big stick of evidencial supremacy.
as for WMD you stick to your guns but the rest of Bush's supporters have moved on... remember the "WMD as a cover" story that someone posted not too long ago? it basically admits that WMD was a good reason for 2 years ago but the reason now is PNAC. Gee whiz what a coincidence that happened. B)
also why can't you see that we are fighting terrorists that we [b]create[/b] every day just by hanging out there. cmon It's not like there are X amount of terrorists like there were X amount of German Nazi soldiers - and killing captuing that X amount will defeat the "enemy" - the amount of terrorists are a fluctuating number - this is a war unlike any other we have fought in our history yet we are fighting it in ways that were relevant 50 years ago.
hey man we can piss into the wind for the next 10 years on this subject but every day it's the same s**t - people dying on both sides for no real reason.
If you had a kid serving over there right now and he died in action would you really believe that he died protecting AMERICAN freedom?
American Right to Buy Oil
yeah maybe those are realistic reasons
but AMERICAN FREEDOM?
hell no - Iraq is 6000 miles away and was never a threat to national security. even if they had nukes (which they didn't) those things couldn't get out of their backyard without ballistics - if we are talking about smuggling WMD - well who is to say that isn't happening from the dozen other countries that hate us over there? How is invading the nation of Iraq relevant to stopping transient suicidal rogues?
That's why this war was a sham - we think we can transform the middle east into some sort of suburb of Israel, it's a f--king sick joke and the people who suffer do so because the entire premise is flawed.
if the PNAC doctrine is true, it will probably take GENERATIONS to take place
are you comfortable spending American dollars and blood at this rate for the next 100 years?
sooner or later we will realize that this was a bad idea... and when that occurs, just like the police actions of Korea and Vietnam before it, America will have LOST. History has judged those conflicts objectively and so it will be with this conflict. 30 years from now there will be no hiding behind party lines - the question will be did we win or did we lose??? i don't see how we can win.
That's my biggest problem - we are going to lose this war it's only a matter of time. How can we WIN a war with no palpable goals?
cmon let's get real - that's all a pipe dream and you know it - look at the ukraine - they have a democracy but it doesn't stop them from acting like animals, rigging elections and poisoning their candidates with dioxin - we can call it democracy but it's really a sham... it's not real democracy - you can change the gov't but it's not like the people are any different -
i can't be the only who sees the difference between a real democracy and what 90% of the world's "democracies" are -