Draft?

[Rich Parsons]

An article about a call for the draft.

http://www.yahoo.com/s/441260

 

[Fu_Bag]

This is an interesting tactic. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out with the voting public in 2 years time. Ultimately, what it looks like he's going for is mandatory community service for every American. With people voting against support for war, and with Kerry's comments about failures/under achievers in society ending up in Iraq, it seems like a strange thing to do to the anti-war people that probably lead to a Democrat victory this fall.

Personally, I think he's trying to send the message of "Support Republican leadership, end up in Iraq....of course, you CAN always just perform mandatory community service as if you were a convicted criminal......". It didn't go over too well when some Republicans were considering a re-instatement of the Draft. I can't imagine it'll go over any better when the Democrats do it.

The next 2 years should be very interesting.

I wonder if we'll have to wear orange uniforms when performing this mandatory community service?

 

[Ping898]

There are times I am greatful to be a female with health issues...I don't think this will ever get passed and if you give the community service option I don't think the make up of the military will change much, the "elite" that he is trying to target will just go for the community service route. Either way I don't think this will pass anytime in the near future....

 

[Don Roley]

Personally, I think he's trying to send the message of "Support Republican leadership, end up in Iraq....of course, you CAN always just perform mandatory community service as if you were a convicted criminal......".

Don't you just love it when someone takes something as serious as this and tries to use it to promote their grip on power?

I think you are right and that they are just trying to get the guys that are scared of going to Iraq or Afghanistan to get to the polls in two years and vote for the party that will pull us out the fastest. With a volunteer military, the people that are facing the danger made the choice willingly to join.

I also think this may be something that never quite gets to the president's desk before the next election. If Bush gets it and vetoes it as I think he would, then they lose their fear factor. But if it is being talked about and a possibility, then the guys that fear getting drafted if it passes will still be motivated to vote.

Lots of talk and commitees in front of cameras. Little action. Nothing that risks it being vetoed.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Don't you just love it when someone takes something as serious as this and tries to use it to promote their grip on power?

I think you are right and that they are just trying to get the guys that are scared of going to Iraq or Afghanistan to get to the polls in two years and vote for the party that will pull us out the fastest. With a volunteer military, the people that are facing the danger made the choice willingly to join.

I also think this may be something that never quite gets to the president's desk before the next election. If Bush gets it and vetoes it as I think he would, then they lose their fear factor. But if it is being talked about and a possibility, then the guys that fear getting drafted if it passes will still be motivated to vote.

Lots of talk and commitees in front of cameras. Little action. Nothing that risks it being vetoed.

I think you're right.

 

[mrhnau]

I also think this may be something that never quite gets to the president's desk before the next election. If Bush gets it and vetoes it as I think he would, then they lose their fear factor. But if it is being talked about and a possibility, then the guys that fear getting drafted if it passes will still be motivated to vote.

It would never get out of Congress. This is just one guy trying to raise a ruckus. Nothing more. Got him on the news and gets people talking about it.

If it -DID- happen to squeek out of congress, considering that everyone more or less was elected in an anti-war election, the House and Senate shift again in two years. Dems know this, so they are not going to commit suicide.

 

[Don Roley]

It would never get out of Congress. This is just one guy trying to raise a ruckus. Nothing more. Got him on the news and gets people talking about it.

If it -DID- happen to squeek out of congress, considering that everyone more or less was elected in an anti-war election, the House and Senate shift again in two years. Dems know this, so they are not going to commit suicide.

Good point. If there is only one guy talking about this, it keeps it in the public eye and scares the folks I talked about. If you get the entire Democratic party behind it, the target audience will know who to vote against in the next election.

So we can expect a lot of talk from one guy with a lot of silence from his fellow party members.

I served in the National Guard. I joined freely with no compulsion. Having said that, I consider the lack of rights I endured to be extreme. It is needed. But it is something that the military needs to do if it is to do the job is is tasked with. I do not like the American Nazi Party, but they have a right to spread their doctrine just like anyone else. But if they did that while serving in the Army, there would be riots. Hence their first ammendment rights are second to the military's need. They can't join if they admit being a member.

So causing them (and others) to join and then telling them thay can't engage in their civil rights strikes me as wrong. And I find it ironic that it is the party that complained about our losing civil rights that is now supporting, or at the least remaining quite about, the drive to press- gang people into the military.

 

[michaeledward]

with Kerry's comments about failures/under achievers in society ending up in Iraq,

Willful ignorance of all that remains about this comment creates an intentional mis-representation of what occured for advancement of political agenda on display with this comment.




President George W. Bush has broken the best fighting machine ever created. It is nice to see someone offering a plan to fix the problem.

The solution proposed may not be adopted. Being able to talk about the issue is important important first step.

What is the Republican Plan for fixing our damaged military?

 

[mrhnau]

President George W. Bush has broken the best fighting machine ever created. It is nice to see someone offering a plan to fix the problem.

ahem...

I have a plan. I can't tell you what it is, but I have a plan.

What plans have really been proposed? I don't think even Democrats are going to suggest immediate withdrawl is a solution...

 

[michaeledward]

ahem...

What plans have really been proposed? I don't think even Democrats are going to suggest immediate withdrawl is a solution...

Please define Senator Kerry's use of the Plan here .. .and provide a substantive link to the quote. The only person I heard talking about a 'secret plan' in the past six months was the Senator from Montana, Conrad Burns.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/18/burns-iraq-plan/

But, this is not a plan about fixing Iraq - which is completely broke and unfixable. It is a lost war. And only time will tell how many names earn a spot on its memorial.

Congressman Rangle is proposing a plan to fix the military, which has been broken, by the President's war of choice, and its incompetent adminstration.

They are, I believe, two seperate, and distinctly different, problems.


P.S. A current military study - commissioned by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - is exactly recommending an immediate pullout of Iraq. To say that no one is proposing this as a plan to fix the Iraq problem is wrong. The three choices discussed in this study are "Go Home - Go Long - Go Big". EDIT - but, you probably are correct. Chairman Pace is probably not a "even a Democrat" - END EDIT.

 

[mrhnau]

Please define Senator Kerry's use of the Plan here .. .and provide a substantive link to the quote. The only person I heard talking about a 'secret plan' in the past six months was the Senator from Montana, Conrad Burns.

This is a humorous one

I do have a Plan, scout's honor I do. I’ll post it on my web site, so you’ll know what's new.
(right after the election)

Wall Street Journal

I have a plan for how we can get there. I'm not going to negotiate my plan in the newspapers or publicly.

http://www.alternet.org/election04/19947/

At every critical juncture in Iraq, and in the war on terrorism, the President has made the wrong choice. I have a plan to make America stronger.

...

George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do.

powerlineblod

"It will not take long to do what is necessary," he said. "I'm not going to give you a specific date, but I'll tell you that I have a plan, and I will put that plan in place."

He keeps talking about a plan, but never gives ANY details. He sure had one, but he sure kept it secret!

 

[Stan]

I would like to see a draft, but only with a massive reorganization of the American military.

1) National Guard forces cannot be deployed outside of US territory.

2) Active members in or veterans of the National Guard exempt from national conscription

3) Withdrawal of US forces from all overseas bases

4) Constitutional amendment that US forces cannot be deployed overseas without a Congressional declaration of war; President's role as Commander-in-Chief only to exist in time of declared war

5) National conscription, at 18 years old, male and female, with non-military option only reserved for concientious objectors. Two year mandiorty service with relatively low pay. Relatively higher pay and benefits for those who choose to re-enlist and form part of the "professional" military. That way people who are given advanced expensive training will be a known quantity, will all have been through basic and several years of service, and will be less likely to serve dishonorably.

These changes will make the US VERY strong on defense, making it virtually impregnible, while at the same time hardly allowing for "expeditionary forces" to serve imperialist adventures.

The choice between security and agression vs weakness and peace is a false one. We can be a strong and peaceful country!

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Aint nothing wrong with our military..somebody calling it broken is talking out of his ***. Its the strategy thats broken not the military.

 

[Andrew Green]

Interesting idea... Point seems to be that those controlling when people go to fight are disconnected from those that actually go. If the politicians children suddenly ran a risk of getting drafted and sent in they'd think a little harder about deciding to get involved in a war.

 

[mrhnau]

Great, well organized post... Here are some thoughts...

I would like to see a draft, but only with a massive reorganization of the American military.

If conscription is required, why should we have a draft?

1) National Guard forces cannot be deployed outside of US territory.

Honestly, i'd like that... We don't need a huge National Guard force in this case, especialy with point 3)

2) Active members in or veterans of the National Guard exempt from national conscription

If we have a small National Guard then thats not going to matter too much. If its large, we might have tons of people jumping into the Guard.

3) Withdrawal of US forces from all overseas bases

For what reason? How do we validate treaties are maintained? Just trust? Having strategically placed bases keeps our footprint near critical areas. Maintain a sufficient presence to secure the facility, but no more...

Maintaining allies throughout the world is crucial. Our international footprint was small before WW2 and stretching across the Atlantic to help our buddies was difficult. I think maintaining facilities abroad helps bridge that gap for future problems.

4) Constitutional amendment that US forces cannot be deployed overseas without a Congressional declaration of war; President's role as Commander-in-Chief only to exist in time of declared war

I doubt that wil happen any time soon, especially considering that would be ripe for a Veto. Having one Commander-in-Chief is ideal. You don't want 500+ people trying to debate every deployment and major military decision. Beaucracy can be needlesly slow!

5) National conscription, at 18 years old, male and female, with non-military option only reserved for concientious objectors. Two year mandiorty service with relatively low pay. Relatively higher pay and benefits for those who choose to re-enlist and form part of the "professional" military. That way people who are given advanced expensive training will be a known quantity, will all have been through basic and several years of service, and will be less likely to serve dishonorably.

This happens in alot of countries, Israel for example. Used to also happen in communist countries. Part of me likes the idea... I think it would really open up the eyes of alot of people. I'd take away the concientious objector clause though. Train them for a non-violent job. Recruiting, chef, tactics, other services, etc.. Even someone medically unable could do a non-physical job.

I don't think this would be exceptionally popular though. Also need to consider things like college. Possible deferment until after college, or you could go to college after service.

These changes will make the US VERY strong on defense, making it virtually impregnible, while at the same time hardly allowing for "expeditionary forces" to serve imperialist adventures.

The choice between security and agression vs weakness and peace is a false one. We can be a strong and peaceful country!

Imperialist adventures! LOL! Great phrase...

Strong and peaceful is wonderful. I'd like that. Until we live in a generally peaceful world where everyone is not gunning for us, I don't think living in a shell will work very well. not in a world that is constantly getting smaller and weapons have longer and longer reaches...

 

[CoryKS]

Congressman Rangle is proposing a plan to fix the military, which has been broken, by the President's war of choice, and its incompetent adminstration.

Yup. Chuck's trying to fix the military, all right. Much like the way you would "fix" a dog or a cat.

 

[michaeledward]

1 - This is a humorous one
2 - Wall Street Journal
3 - http://www.alternet.org/election04/19947/
4 - powerlineblod
He keeps talking about a plan, but never gives ANY details. He sure had one, but he sure kept it secret!

1 - Not written by Senator Kerry. Kind of irrelevant, don't ya think?

2 - An article from July 16, 2004? --- And it is a plan to end fighting in Iraq. Not a plan to fix the military, and share responsibility of the military with all Americans.

3 - Again, a reference from when America had reached milestone of 1,000 American soldiers dead. The current number is 2,867. More than two years have passed since that article. Two years that have been far from status quo. Should we behave as if the past two years didn't happen? Is that wise?

4 - And more of the same here ... old stories from a Presidential campaign that is long over. Had Senator Kerry been elected in 2004, you might have a point to bring these articles up today, if we were where we are.

But, Foreign military engagements are under day-to-day control of the Executive Branch of Government. There is really very little the Congress can do. Yes, they have control of the purse strings, but messing with funding when soldiers are dying is a really bad idea.

As for plans, that you say haven't been proposed. Some of these have been around for a while, but they probably would work right off the shelf. You see, getting out doesn't put as much strain on the military as staying put.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/bringourtroopshome.php

http://www.house.gov/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html

http://www.amazon.com/Out-Iraq-Practical-Plan-Withdrawal/dp/1416534563

http://www.comw.org/pda/0512exitplans.html

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/10/sr_highlight.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0919-22.htm

I think there is something here, that some may call a 'plan'.

I'm wondering .. what is the Plan for success?

 

[Rich Parsons]

Please define Senator Kerry's use of the Plan here .. .and provide a substantive link to the quote. The only person I heard talking about a 'secret plan' in the past six months was the Senator from Montana, Conrad Burns.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/18/burns-iraq-plan/

But, this is not a plan about fixing Iraq - which is completely broke and unfixable. It is a lost war. And only time will tell how many names earn a spot on its memorial.

Congressman Rangle is proposing a plan to fix the military, which has been broken, by the President's war of choice, and its incompetent adminstration.

They are, I believe, two seperate, and distinctly different, problems.


P.S. A current military study - commissioned by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - is exactly recommending an immediate pullout of Iraq. To say that no one is proposing this as a plan to fix the Iraq problem is wrong. The three choices discussed in this study are "Go Home - Go Long - Go Big". EDIT - but, you probably are correct. Chairman Pace is probably not a "even a Democrat" - END EDIT.

Michael,

I am confused, as this article http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061120/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq lists three options but I think your underline and bold is not in this article, and is your emphasis. Other than to mention that there are three options, and one is to pull out, I do not see this as the main option. I see none as being listed as the main option.

 

[michaeledward]

Michael,

I am confused, as this article http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061120/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq lists three options but I think your underline and bold is not in this article, and is your emphasis. Other than to mention that there are three options, and one is to pull out, I do not see this as the main option. I see none as being listed as the main option.

Rich,

The Post Script was added to that post because another poster made the statement, "I don't think even Democrats are going to suggest immediate withdrawl".

Yet this study, assembled at the request of Chairman Pace, does indeed "suggest" an immediate withdrawal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901249.html

"Go Home," the third option, calls for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops. It was rejected by the Pentagon group as likely to push Iraq directly into a full-blown and bloody civil war.

I am not sure what is confusing to you. There is a difference in the words "suggest" and "recommend". I believe those words are close enough to synonyms to be considered to have the same meaning.

I believe I also ascribed the suggestion/recommendation to the correct entity - a Current Military Study. I did not ascribe the immediate withdrawal to Chairman Pace, except for the suggestion in the EDIT portion of my post. I probably should have referenced Chairman Pace's commission in that EDIT.

Now, if you took the underlined portion of my post to mean that is was the preferred choice of the three suggestions, I can understand your confusion. I did not mean to imply that. Nor did I think think I referenced it as the preferred option. I was attempting to point out that there does exist credible suggestions for immediate withdrawal.

I hope this clears up your confusion.

Michael

 

[Rich Parsons]

Rich,

The Post Script was added to that post because another poster made the statement, "I don't think even Democrats are going to suggest immediate withdrawl".

Yet this study, assembled at the request of Chairman Pace, does indeed "suggest" an immediate withdrawal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901249.html



I am not sure what is confusing to you. There is a difference in the words "suggest" and "recommend". I believe those words are close enough to synonyms to be considered to have the same meaning.

I believe I also ascribed the suggestion/recommendation to the correct entity - a Current Military Study. I did not ascribe the immediate withdrawal to Chairman Pace, except for the suggestion in the EDIT portion of my post. I probably should have referenced Chairman Pace's commission in that EDIT.

Now, if you took the underlined portion of my post to mean that is was the preferred choice of the three suggestions, I can understand your confusion. I did not mean to imply that. Nor did I think think I referenced it as the preferred option. I was attempting to point out that there does exist credible suggestions for immediate withdrawal.

I hope this clears up your confusion.

Michael

Michael,

When a committee makes a recommendation there is usually only one recommendation from multiple options or suggestions. As in the Committee recommends this as the course of action we should take. Or You Boss Recommends you for a promotion versus the others in your group who might also be up for one.

So, I guess maybe I am just using the definitions differently than you, as I see a difference in the usage per corporate and governemental usages between suggest and recommend.