Bush War Adviser Says Draft Worth a Look

[BT]

Bush War Adviser Says Draft Worth a Look     
Aug 10 06:25 PM US/Eastern
By RICHARD LARDNER
WASHINGTON (AP) - Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday.

"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."

"And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another," Lute added in his first interview since he was confirmed by the Senate in June.

President Nixon abolished the draft in 1973. Restoring it, Lute said, would be a "major policy shift" and Bush has made it clear that he doesn't think it's necessary.

The repeated deployments affect not only the troops but their families, who can influence whether a service member decides to stay in the military, Lute said.

"There's both a personal dimension of this, where this kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living room conversations within these families," he said. "And ultimately, the health of the all- volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions."

The military conducted a draft during the Civil War and both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. The Selective Service System, re- established in 1980, maintains a registry of 18-year-old men.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has called for reinstating the draft as a way to end the Iraq war.

Bush picked Lute in mid-May as a deputy national security adviser with responsibility for ensuring efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are coordinated with policymakers in Washington. Lute, an active-duty general, was chosen after several retired generals turned down the job.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QUECGG1&show_article=1

[Michael Tee]

That's hilarious.  An administration composed almost exclusively of Vietnam-era draft dodgers and combat avoiders is now gonna consider drafting America's youth for the ever-popular project of forcing "democracy" a.k.a. oil robbery down the throats of an unwilling Iraqi population.  THAT oughtta do wonders for the Smirking Chimp's approval ratings.

[Plane]

http://www.normantranscript.com/opinion/local_story_223012325

Recruiting soldiers in times of war is not the easiest task. The Army now wants more money and incentives to sweeten the signings.

Pentagon leaders say they want to be able to give recruits up to $45,000 tax free that they accrue during their career. It's money on top of education and other incentives.

The Associated Press reports Army brass want to raise to $20,000 the signing bonus that troops get for joining before Sept. 30. They must head straight to boot camp.


Soldiers with non-offensive neck and hand tattoos would be allowed. They also want to raise the maximum enlistment age to 42, give soldiers a $2,000 bird dog fee for recruit referrals and waive weight requirements for husky soldiers who agree to trim down.

The Army also wants to send soldiers back to their hometowns to promote military enlistment.



[[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]]


During a reltively pacefull time the Army grew too picky and the wage lagged.

[Michael Tee]

Makes sense.  When the low-hanging fruit's all gone, why not just scoop up whatever's already fallen onto the ground?  The Volkssturm of the 21st century.  Generally seen as a measure of desperation, but who the hell can afford to keep up pretences any longer?

[BT]

When the low-hanging fruit's all gone

Who are these low hanging ftuit of which you speak?

Is this a newly adopted phrase you are using?

[Michael Tee]

As you yourself explained in one of your posts, "low-hanging fruit" is a synonym for easy pickin's.  From the military recruiter's POV, it's boys (and girls) who are poor, uneducated, desperate for employment, in some cases badly in need of a Green Card or citizenship and have no alternative other than the military if they want to get ahead in life.  People who have to risk life and limb in the military's mad adventures because they're plumb out of options.

I assume your question was rhetorical, since you yourself have previously answered it.  What was your point?

[The_Professor]

Not to necessarily raise a ruckas, but I have always felt that the draft shouldnever have been terminated. It was positive for many reasons, most notably an integrated tool. In fact, I will go somewhat further and state that if I were King, all males (perhaps females) would serve two years upon graduation form high school or the appropriate age(I have a step son who is in his third attempt at ninth grade as he refuses to watch up in the morning...sigh). It could be two years giving back to society and building maturity building park benches alongthe Appalachina Trial or whatever, but two years would be the required time frame. Exceptions? Sure, disabilities and such but no college deferments and "cop out" deferments in this category wold be allowed. The draft should be reinstituted immeidately, not because of Iraq but because it is the right thing to do.

[Michael Tee]

The draft had some positive benefits, which you mentioned, but you have to look at the overall effect of it.  The overall effect was to provide a huge pool of manpower just waiting to be put to use.  It encouraged military adventurism.  One of the constraints that holds back the Bush administration from even wider military adventures in the Mid-East and elsewhere is lack of available manpower.  A drafted Army would relieve some of that pressure, as well as releasing some of the pressure on military wages, which would no longer have to be competitive.

If the benefits of the draft are mainly reaped by the personal development of the slackers and the disadvantaged, wouldn't it be more constructive to take the funds that would otherwise go into a draft Army and put them to work in education, including early childhood development, and health care, including mental health?

[The_Professor]

Realistically, won't happen, MT.

"If the benefits of the draft are mainly reaped by the personal development of the slackers and the disadvantaged, wouldn't it be more constructive to take the funds that would otherwise go into a draft Army and put them to work in education, including early childhood development, and health care, including mental health?"

I only mentioned ONE of the benefits and that mentioned personal development. There are others such as projecting military power. I'm not talking about imperialism. As UP and I agreed on some time ago, I propose a strong military but one that is non-adventurous. Have the appropriate force, a force so strong no one will mess with it. But, MT, you can use this force for reasons other than killing like assisting in worldwide disasters, etc. Good PR for the U.S. as well.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The draft should be reinstituted immediately, not because of Iraq but because it is the right thing to do.
===================================================================
THis makes sense if the US is supposed to be an Empire.
Iraq is an imperialist war, no matter how much you clowns argue that unemployed youth from Junction City Kansas and Arkadelphia Arkansas be trained to bust down the doors of Iraqis thousands of miles away in the name of democracy.

It is not the military that is adventurous. Most of them would rather stay at home and let Uncle Sugar take care of them and let them benefit from cheapo consumer products at the PX or BX. The adventurous element are the schmucks that manage to get themselves elected president who get vast contributions from the military suppliers that benefit most from the war.

There is a very accurate term for the ,military draft in a time of peace. It is "involuntary servitude". and it sucks donkeyhonks.

[Michael Tee]

As far as disaster relief goes, IMHO, it would be a lot more cost-effective and certainly less paternalistic, for the U.S. to train and equip local or regional relief forces to respond to their own disasters themselves.  The whole idea of saving the world seems to depend on an under-appreciation of the very real and very serious problems that the U.S. faces at home, few if any of which are amenable to military-style solutions.  Given the finite amount of funding available, I would think that problems of health-care, housing and education should be where the U.S. should concentrate its resources, plus now, as it appears, infrastructure maintenance and renewal.  If sanity ever returns to the White House, THAT'S where the national effort should be focused.

[Plane]

As far as disaster relief goes, IMHO, it would be a lot more cost-effective and certainly less paternalistic, for the U.S. to train and equip local or regional relief forces to respond to their own disasters themselves.  The whole idea of saving the world seems to depend on an under-appreciation of the very real and very serious problems that the U.S. faces at home, few if any of which are amenable to military-style solutions.  Given the finite amount of funding available, I would think that problems of health-care, housing and education should be where the U.S. should concentrate its resources, plus now, as it appears, infrastructure maintenance and renewal.  If sanity ever returns to the White House, THAT'S where the national effort should be focused.

You are talking about Reagans peace dividend.

Yes we did reduce Military spending by more than 33% over the following decade andthere was a concidental robust economy.


But every improvement becomes the new norm , we must not retreat to the pre-WWII  tiny Army we kept at the ready for most of our history , unless our potential for enemys return to pre-WWII levels.

[Universe Prince]

The draft should be reinstituted immeidately, not because of Iraq but because it is the right thing to do.

So you think conscription is the right thing to do? Yeah, I guess we ought to train the young to accept that their lives belong to the state. They can't own anything else. They don't own the money they earn, they pay the government for the privilege of having an income. They aren't allowed to own property, they not only pay for that privilege the government can take that privilege away anytime it likes. So why bother with the illusion that they even own their lives? If they didn't want to sign the social contract to serve thet state, they shouldn't have been born here.

(Yeah, that was me being unnecessarily sarcastic. That seems to happen a lot lately. I'll try to curb that in the future.)

[BT]

What was that you were saying about mooches?

[Universe Prince]

What was that you were saying about mooches?

If you're asking me, what I said was, "If they didn't have programs for people to mooch off of in the first place, they wouldn't need those [immigration] restrictions, now would they?" So what's your point?