This is why we need the Draft!
This was sent to me courtesy of Mil.com.http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,146498,00.html?ESRC=army.nl
Army's Fighting Force Nearly Exhausted
Associated Press | August 20, 2007
WASHINGTON - Sapped by nearly six years of war, the Army has nearly exhausted its fighting force and its options if the Bush administration decides to extend the Iraq buildup beyond next spring.
The Army's 38 available combat units are deployed, just returning home or already tapped to go to Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, leaving no fresh troops to replace five extra brigades that President Bush sent to Baghdad this year, according to interviews and military documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
That presents the Pentagon with several painful choices if the U.S. wants to maintain higher troop levels beyond the spring of 2008:
-Using National Guard units on an accelerated schedule.
-Breaking the military's pledge to keep Soldiers in Iraq for no longer than 15 months.
-Breaching a commitment to give Soldiers a full year at home before sending them back to war.
For a war-fatigued nation and a Congress bent on bringing troops home, none of those is desirable.
In Iraq, there are 18 Army brigades, each with about 3,500 Soldiers. At least 13 more brigades are scheduled to rotate in. Two others are in Afghanistan and two additional ones are set to rotate in there. Also, several other brigades either are set for a future deployment or are scattered around the globe.
Military.com's Deployment Center
The few units that are not at war, in transformation or in their 12-months home time already are penciled in for deployments later in 2008 or into 2009. Shifting them would create problems in the long-term schedule.
Most Army brigades have completed two or three tours in Iraq or Afghanistan; some assignments have lasted as long as 15 months. The 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, has done four tours.
Two Marine regiments - each roughly the same size as an Army brigade - also in Iraq,- bringing the total number of brigades in the country to 20.
When asked what units will fill the void in the coming spring if any need to be replaced, officials give a grim shake of the head, shrug of the shoulders or a palms-up, empty-handed gesture.
"The demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply," the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, said last week. "Right now we have in place deployment and mobilization policies that allow us to meet the current demands. If the demands don't go down over time, it will become increasingly difficult for us to provide the trained and ready forces" for other missions.
Casey said he would not be comfortable extending troops beyond their 15-month deployments. But other military officials acknowledge privately that option is on the table.
Pentagon leaders hope there is enough progress in Iraq to allow them to scale back at least part of the nearly 30,000-strong buildup when Soldiers begin leaving Iraq around March and April.
There are 162,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now, the highest level since the war began in 2003. That figure is expected to hit 171,000 this fall as fresh troops rotate in.
Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq who will deliver a much anticipated progress report to Congress in September, said Wednesday he is considering possible troop cuts and believes the U.S. will have fewer forces in Iraq by next summer.
Other commanders have said the security situation is improving, which would allow U.S. troops to be shifted from combat and lead to an eventual force reduction.
Still, Petraeus and other military leaders have warned against drawing down too quickly. In fact, an upbeat progress report in September may solidify arguments that additional troops should stay longer to ensure that positive changes stick.
"The longer that you keep American forces there, the longer you give this process to solidify and to make sure that it's not going to slide back," said Frederick Kagan, an American Enterprise Institute analyst who recently returned from an eight-day visit to Iraq. "The sooner you take them out, the more you run the risk that enemies will come in and try to disrupt."
Kagan, a leading supporter of the current buildup strategy, said any decision to maintain force levels would have to take into account the effects on the Army. That would include, he said, the strains of sending Guard units back to Iraq more rapidly than Pentagon policy allows or keeping active duty units there longer than 15 months.
"You have the same tradeoff at every moment in this process, which is the institutional well-being of the Army versus what is felt is necessary to win the war," Kagan said.
According to military officials, some Soldiers in Iraq are hearing that it may not be wise to pack their bags to come home when their 15-month tour is up. But to date, Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have said they have no plans to extend those tours.
National Guard officials are bracing for a new round of Guard deployments and a move to decrease their time at home between tours - despite announced plans to give the citizen Soldiers five years off for every one year served.
One Guard official said this past week that the Army is pushing to give Guard units four years or less at home in order to get access to those combat brigades sooner.
Last April the Pentagon notified National Guard brigades in four states that they should be prepared to deploy to Iraq later this year. But documents obtained by the AP show that Guard units in five states - Indiana, Arkansas, Ohio, Oklahoma and Minnesota - are scheduled to deploy to Iraq before the end of the year. A New York Guard unit is set to go to Afghanistan.
The shortage of combat units will be remedied over time. The Pentagon slowly is increasing the size of the active-duty Army by 65,000 members to 547,000 by 2012. The 38 combat brigades currently available for war will expand to 48 by 2013.
The Iraqis hold the key to any U.S. withdrawals. The government in Baghdad has made little progress on political changes the Pentagon says are critical to restoring stability to the country, thus allowing U.S. troops to begin leaving.
If progress is not made and the violence does not abate, the Pentagon will turn again to the Army.
"The Army will do what's necessary and will pay a very high price if necessary," said Kagan. "but I'm hopeful that it won't come to that and I honestly don't think that it will."
This is why I think we need the draft. The National Guard and Reserves are already pushed to their brink as well. It would do alot of good for our younger people too, to have to serve.
Army's Fighting Force Nearly Exhausted
Associated Press | August 20, 2007
WASHINGTON - Sapped by nearly six years of war, the Army has nearly exhausted its fighting force and its options if the Bush administration decides to extend the Iraq buildup beyond next spring.
The Army's 38 available combat units are deployed, just returning home or already tapped to go to Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, leaving no fresh troops to replace five extra brigades that President Bush sent to Baghdad this year, according to interviews and military documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
That presents the Pentagon with several painful choices if the U.S. wants to maintain higher troop levels beyond the spring of 2008:
-Using National Guard units on an accelerated schedule.
-Breaking the military's pledge to keep Soldiers in Iraq for no longer than 15 months.
-Breaching a commitment to give Soldiers a full year at home before sending them back to war.
For a war-fatigued nation and a Congress bent on bringing troops home, none of those is desirable.
In Iraq, there are 18 Army brigades, each with about 3,500 Soldiers. At least 13 more brigades are scheduled to rotate in. Two others are in Afghanistan and two additional ones are set to rotate in there. Also, several other brigades either are set for a future deployment or are scattered around the globe.
Military.com's Deployment Center
The few units that are not at war, in transformation or in their 12-months home time already are penciled in for deployments later in 2008 or into 2009. Shifting them would create problems in the long-term schedule.
Most Army brigades have completed two or three tours in Iraq or Afghanistan; some assignments have lasted as long as 15 months. The 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, has done four tours.
Two Marine regiments - each roughly the same size as an Army brigade - also in Iraq,- bringing the total number of brigades in the country to 20.
When asked what units will fill the void in the coming spring if any need to be replaced, officials give a grim shake of the head, shrug of the shoulders or a palms-up, empty-handed gesture.
"The demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply," the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, said last week. "Right now we have in place deployment and mobilization policies that allow us to meet the current demands. If the demands don't go down over time, it will become increasingly difficult for us to provide the trained and ready forces" for other missions.
Casey said he would not be comfortable extending troops beyond their 15-month deployments. But other military officials acknowledge privately that option is on the table.
Pentagon leaders hope there is enough progress in Iraq to allow them to scale back at least part of the nearly 30,000-strong buildup when Soldiers begin leaving Iraq around March and April.
There are 162,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now, the highest level since the war began in 2003. That figure is expected to hit 171,000 this fall as fresh troops rotate in.
Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq who will deliver a much anticipated progress report to Congress in September, said Wednesday he is considering possible troop cuts and believes the U.S. will have fewer forces in Iraq by next summer.
Other commanders have said the security situation is improving, which would allow U.S. troops to be shifted from combat and lead to an eventual force reduction.
Still, Petraeus and other military leaders have warned against drawing down too quickly. In fact, an upbeat progress report in September may solidify arguments that additional troops should stay longer to ensure that positive changes stick.
"The longer that you keep American forces there, the longer you give this process to solidify and to make sure that it's not going to slide back," said Frederick Kagan, an American Enterprise Institute analyst who recently returned from an eight-day visit to Iraq. "The sooner you take them out, the more you run the risk that enemies will come in and try to disrupt."
Kagan, a leading supporter of the current buildup strategy, said any decision to maintain force levels would have to take into account the effects on the Army. That would include, he said, the strains of sending Guard units back to Iraq more rapidly than Pentagon policy allows or keeping active duty units there longer than 15 months.
"You have the same tradeoff at every moment in this process, which is the institutional well-being of the Army versus what is felt is necessary to win the war," Kagan said.
According to military officials, some Soldiers in Iraq are hearing that it may not be wise to pack their bags to come home when their 15-month tour is up. But to date, Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have said they have no plans to extend those tours.
National Guard officials are bracing for a new round of Guard deployments and a move to decrease their time at home between tours - despite announced plans to give the citizen Soldiers five years off for every one year served.
One Guard official said this past week that the Army is pushing to give Guard units four years or less at home in order to get access to those combat brigades sooner.
Last April the Pentagon notified National Guard brigades in four states that they should be prepared to deploy to Iraq later this year. But documents obtained by the AP show that Guard units in five states - Indiana, Arkansas, Ohio, Oklahoma and Minnesota - are scheduled to deploy to Iraq before the end of the year. A New York Guard unit is set to go to Afghanistan.
The shortage of combat units will be remedied over time. The Pentagon slowly is increasing the size of the active-duty Army by 65,000 members to 547,000 by 2012. The 38 combat brigades currently available for war will expand to 48 by 2013.
The Iraqis hold the key to any U.S. withdrawals. The government in Baghdad has made little progress on political changes the Pentagon says are critical to restoring stability to the country, thus allowing U.S. troops to begin leaving.
If progress is not made and the violence does not abate, the Pentagon will turn again to the Army.
"The Army will do what's necessary and will pay a very high price if necessary," said Kagan. "but I'm hopeful that it won't come to that and I honestly don't think that it will."
This is why I think we need the draft. The National Guard and Reserves are already pushed to their brink as well. It would do alot of good for our younger people too, to have to serve.
0
-
Quote: " how can the U.S. expect to capture the hearts and minds of iraqis
if it cant even compell it citizens to serv in the military.
this is an unpopular war based on greed and americans are smart enough not to put themselvs on the line needlessly
reinstating the draft would be quite a boost to the anti war movement. remember what happened last time?
we lost that one too. " I dont think "we lost that one too." Kinda a stalmate I would call it. BUT, we did win the ww2 war hands down, and only thanks to the draft on our part. I for one was glad to be fighting
in Europe, not on our own homeland. We did not have 9-11's and terrorists threats to our homeland. We took the fight to THEM, away from our country and families. I kinda like to see it that way for selfish reasons. Better to fight over there than here.0 -
Would this be a good time to qoute; "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"
Many, if not most people now days are only looking for what's in it for me and not the big picture. I am not referring to Iraq necessarily here, but for the good of our country in general. As long as it remains give me, give me, me me me, then we are on a downhill spiral. If not Iraq, what then when the next wanna be comes to us? Will we prevail or will we lay down and give up French style? War is not won politically either. We need to be allowed to take whatever steps necessary to bring victory.0 -
Vess - a couple of comments:
1) What alternative do you have to offer??
2) So you're telling me that the multiple tours in combat that my four Sons have served (voluntarily) has been for nothing ??
3) How much real combat have YOU experienced ??
"make it a US territory or get the hell out. This inbetween BS aint working!!! "
-Vess
I agree with that. We need to make Iraq a colony. See my previous posts on this subject.
Doug
* edited for spelling0 -
really dont know if a draft is the answer but just look at any vid of todays youths physical condition... only 10% could get started at basic training & i suppose then like most things currently we would lower the standards....bet in 10 years we are NOT the worlds superpower 0 -
quote:Originally posted by AHansen
Don't need the draft, just need to stop being the worlds police man
And what then when the whole world goes to shizzle and the resulting collapse worldwide drags the US economy down because we don't have enough countries to sell to and buy from?
What about the terrorist attacks, and frontal attacks by uniformed armies that will happen if we pull all of our military strength back inside our own borders?
There's a lot of good we do in the world just by "being there." When foreign countries see US military forces, they think one of two things: "Thank God, the Americans are here!" or "Oh $^@#, the Americans are here!"
We only go where there is trouble that threatens us or our allies, if you haven't noticed.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Odawgp
Draft is unfair.
especially if there is the ability of some to dodge it. but not everyone can afford to dodge it.
I think we would be better off making it manditory that everyone serve a minimum of 4yrs in one branch of service or another. the country would then have the troops it needs and not have to worry where the next bunch is coming from. and if you leave you have just become an illegal.
We would not be against a draft if we where not at war.
the country would be stronger. everyone would be fighting for the same cause. And not fighting for their own.
and those of ya that want to leave then f---in leave. the country will be better off without ya.
If'n I had to do it again i would serve at least 4yrs.
My .02
You mean you didn't?[V]0 -
quote:Originally posted by sarge_3ad
I'll say this, that I'm glad we are fighting terrorist in Iraq, rather in America. Those people want to wipe out our kind, and it's better to fight them there than here.
I disagree.
With all due respect with your work and service to our country.
On 911 we had A hand full of "International Terrorist" that made it to this country with a well thought out pan for destruction.
In my minds eye were are now fighting Back yard gorillas on there own turf. International terrorist such as Bin laden knew this would be the knee jerk reaction from the U.S. This only pushes
and justify's Muslim radical ideas.
The money currently spent on the war in Iraq (however many trillions it is) I say do like Israel, Bring the troops home put them in the air ports, and boarders, and say come get us if you dare.0 -
We can Fight hard, Or Fight Smart[;)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
Vess - a couple of comments:
1) What alternative do you have to offer??
Sending everybody home. Would save us hundreds of lives and billions of dollars a year to put into our own security. As for fixing Iraq, there is no alternative. Unfixable. If you think it is, please share what your alternative would be.
2) So you're telling me that the multiple tours in combat that my four Sons have served (voluntarily) has been for nothing ??
When the war was a war, I supported it. I was happy with our success long ago. If they were involved with the initial stages and helped bring Saddam down, that's great. As for now, I would rather have them home than risking their lives for something I cannot support any longer. I would say initially it was for something.
3) How much real combat have YOU experienced ??
WTH does that have to do with any argument presented here? Is this supposed to be the ultimate credibility killer to you guys? Yeah, I'm just some GD hippy against all wars. Yeah, right. I hate these arab countries. I wouldn't care if we nuked them all off the face of the Earth. I never tried to imply I've been involved in combat so I'll stop wasting time with this question because it serves no purpose to my argument.
"make it a US territory or get the hell out. This inbetween BS aint working!!! "
-Vess
I agree with that. We need to make Iraq a colony. See my previous posts on this subject.
But since we'll never be willing to do that, I don't understand why anybody sees a point in continuing to occupy the land. It's business as usual. Then, does anybody think that 100s of thousands more American faces on their soil is going to make them happier and the bad guys will simply go home and give up? I wouldn't see it doing anything but enraging them more. Then they'll get more IEDs out there and cause more damage. And if Iraq is so crucial to the war on terror, why isn't every civilized country in the World committing more troops and resources to Iraq so it can be settled? Where'd everybody else go? Somehow it's only our problem. Iraqis themselves aren't even expected to be concerned with it. And people wonder why the military is having trouble recruiting.0 -
quote:Originally posted by swamp_thing
Having given it some thought and taking into consideration the responses so far I must say that the mandatory serving of 2-4 years is in fact a feasible solution. Of course some are thinking what about those that have limitations that would prevent serving? How about they be trained to do the office work type jobs? If they truly are physically unable to serve in any capacity then so be it, but most could do something. All that did would gain some type of work experience that might help them to be productive post military. It could be a solution to the multitudes that claim to have no ability to work in any capacity. It would also give the country the adequate military coverage we need to remain safe.
Just a few thoughts. Dave
Ask the Israli Army that question. They seem to have a pretty good system in place. Man for man, they may be able to kick anybody's ass.0 -
And here I was believing all the hype about how recruiting numbers are up, up, up and violence has gone down, down, down...
Silly me, right?
Sorry, but Bush got this country into this mess and the veterans and military supported him - they can fix the quagmire themselves.
I didn't ask for anyone to go into Iraq, so I sure as hell ain't gonna tell anyone to go there against their will.
If the military can't cut it, maybe it'll teach them to think before they fight.0 -
I'll ask WWII vet joe if he was ever promised no more than 15 months of combat duty along with a commitment, after those 15 months, to go home for one full year before being sent back to war? Every single person in todays military wanted to be there and I see no good reason for sending in large numbers of people who are conscripted. The draft during the Vietnam era lead to an active dislike for military service (and the military itself) among the US public and it took nearly a decade (and Ronald Reagan) to turn this around. I am sad to say that under Bush the same thing seems to be happening and it is not fair to those who are serving our country and doing their duty as best they can to be saddled with this commander and chief. 0 -
Vess -
Thank you for your reasoned and reasonable response to my questions. It's pleasant to be able to have disagreement without irrationality, as happens here at GB so often.
We are not going to agree on this subject, soon.
And yes, I think Veterans should have a greater say in our National policies than they do.
I wouldn't mind seeing political changes such as some that Robert A. Heinlein advocates in some of his writings.
Doug0 -
IMHO, anyone who continues to support this Iraq conflict is insane. Bat-poop crazy. Psychologically they cant handle the concept that America could have made a mistake. After all, America is infallible, dont'cha know? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
And here I was believing all the hype about how recruiting numbers are up, up, up and violence has gone down, down, down...
Silly me, right?
Sorry, but Bush got this country into this mess and the veterans and military supported him - they can fix the quagmire themselves.
I didn't ask for anyone to go into Iraq, so I sure as hell ain't gonna tell anyone to go there against their will.
If the military can't cut it, maybe it'll teach them to think before they fight.
G W BUSH does'nt have any of his kids over there, he don't care. And I don't think any of the "front line troops had alot of voice in the decision to invade. you sure you're not from mexico?0 -
Pay em more and more folks will come.
It's possible to get a civilian job down there that pays 3 times bether than what a soldier get.
But i guesse there's some extra bonus and free schooling options to considere aswell.0 -
Here is what two known people say about the Draft!
CHARLES MOSKOS
Professor of sociology at Northwestern University
and a former draftee
Our country is facing new kinds of threats and needs a new kind of draft. Even before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, our military was severely overstretched in fulfilling its missions. But more important, we have done nothing serious about homeland defense in the war against terrorism. We need guards for our nuclear power plants, dams and public facilities. We have done little to create the necessary border patrollers, customs agents and cargo-ship inspectors. Short-term draftees, under professional supervision, could perform these duties admirably. It takes less than four months to train a military police officer-precisely the kind of role most needed in peacekeeping missions and guard duties. This would free up professional soldiers, and it would stop the unprecedented activation of reservists. Their multiple tours have led to demoralization and impending recruitment shortfalls.
We must institute a three-tiered draft system in America, with 15-to-24-month tours of duty for citizens ages 18 to 26. In the new-style draft, conscripts could serve in the military, in homeland security or in a civilian-service program like AmeriCorps-and there is no reason women could not be drafted for the latter categories.
___________________________________________________________________________
JAMES INHOFE
Republican Senator from Oklahoma
I think I'm the only member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who would reinstate the draft. There are huge social benefits that come from it. I can assure you I would not be in the U.S. Senate today if I had not gone through the draft. When I look at the problems of some of our kids in America nowadays and then I go visit the troops, I see what a great benefit it is to give people the opportunity to serve their country.
I was drafted into the Army in January 1957 and served two years as an enlisted man. I gained a new outlook on life through the rigors of basic training. The military can have a more intense influence on soldiers when they are drafted and have no choice. I developed a sense of patriotism through the experience of serving my country. I'm not on a crusade, but I think today's youth could use more of that type of discipline.
___________________________________________________________________________0 -
quote:Originally posted by MosinNagantDisciple
IMHO, anyone who continues to support this Iraq conflict is insane. Bat-poop crazy. Psychologically they cant handle the concept that America could have made a mistake. After all, America is infallible, dont'cha know?
We still have people running around who'll tell you that we could have won the war in Vietnam if only the American people had not been allowed to watch television and see the war every night in their livingrooms. 35 years later if we can just keep the public from watching the news on TV or logging on to web sites (unless those sites are the ones which are Gun Broker approved) the public will understand that we are prevailing in Iraq, that the conflict is nearly at an end, that there is light at the end of the tunnel and then Bush will receive the 90% approval rating he so richly deserves.0 -
vess1 you are a wise man.
Thank you for your sensible and well thought out remarks.
This war is the greatest disaster ever undertaken by an American President, and Bush is too stupid and stubborn to even realize that it is a mistake.
We will suffer for decades on account of the Iraq debacle.0 -
quote:Originally posted by joeaf1911a1
Never have I heard such damn poor arguments against the draft from so many big talking gun men that are afraid of something that can and may shoot back. You guys better stick to paper targets that dont shoot back. My, my, how fearfull some have gotten. Always some excuse for not serving your country. Back in the '40's our country was not attacked as yet (like we have been and will be), but one third of us enlisted and few fled the draft. Talk like this would have given you a
ride on a fence rail and a coat of tar and feathers. But today, everyone does what is "good for them". Not the country.
The voice of reason.0 -
13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
A draft is entirely unConstitutional. There is a reason the term "involuntary servitude" was included instead of just "slavery", the draft was quite unpopular in the Civil War, and widely thought illegal. This amendment ensured it is illegal, regardless of what foolish spin the government can come up with when trying to be the world's policeman. Had we followed Washington's advice and stayed out of WWI in the first place, we wouldn't be in this mess now where it's difficult to stay out of things that aren't our business. I don't care if the Iraqis have democracy, they want it, let them fight for it, instead of wasting our lives over a bunch of lunatics more interested in killing each other over religion. We're worried about some idiot dictator who had a pile of old outdated weapons and a military that didn't last even a month, while we give favorable trading status and most of our jobs to a communist controlled China whose leaders have made comments to the effect that they view us as their number one enemy and they are going to destroy us economically? Giving Russia monetary aid and even military supplies and such, supporting the Saudi government whose extremist strain of Islam has created many of the terrorists, going into talks and such to form the "security and prosperity partnership" to turn us, Canada and Mexico into the next EU...Our leaders seem to be trying to destroy us, they are almost all guilty of treason as defined by the Constitution.
If asked to volunteer for a worthy cause, I'd likely do so. If asked to, for example, protect our borders against the invaders we have pouring in demanding we cater to them and claiming they own our Southwest, I'd go right ahead and volunteer. Ask me to fight for something we shouldn't even be involved in (the entire Middle East for example), I'll say no. Try to force me to serve a corrupt and tyrannical federal government that daily tramples on the Constitution, you'll learn I'm not afraid of fighting, but it won't be who the government wants me to fight.[:(!]0 -
Kristov: " I'll ask WWII vet joe if he was ever promised no more than 15 months of combat duty along with a commitment, after those 15 months, to go home for one full year before being sent back to war? Every single person in todays military wanted to be there and I see no good reason for sending in large numbers of people who are conscripted. The draft during the Vietnam era lead to an active dislike for military service (and the military itself) among the US public and it took nearly a decade (and Ronald Reagan) to turn this around. I am sad to say that under Bush the same thing seems to be happening and it is not fair to those who are serving our country and doing their duty as best they can to be saddled with this commander and chief." Kristov: On elisting or being drafted you were IN for the duration plus 6 monhs. No G.I. Bill
promised till late '44. The Infantry Div. I served with (3rd I.D.) went ashore for the Invasion of Africa in '42. Those few "originals"
fought till wars end in '45. For a Division of 15,000 troops we had over 29,000 combat casualties (KIA, WIA, MIA, ) not counting non-combat calualties (frostbite, pneumonia, Malaria, accidents, etc.)
Of the few remaining "originals" there was no returning home till wars end. Luckily I was a casualty replacement who only joined them in France till wars end.
till wars end.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Flyin_Paulie
quote:Originally posted by Odawgp
Draft is unfair.
especially if there is the ability of some to dodge it. but not everyone can afford to dodge it.
I think we would be better off making it manditory that everyone serve a minimum of 4yrs in one branch of service or another. the country would then have the troops it needs and not have to worry where the next bunch is coming from. and if you leave you have just become an illegal.
We would not be against a draft if we where not at war.
the country would be stronger. everyone would be fighting for the same cause. And not fighting for their own.
and those of ya that want to leave then f---in leave. the country will be better off without ya.
If'n I had to do it again i would serve at least 4yrs.
My .02
You mean you didn't?[V]
No I didn't [V]
I am man enough to admit my mistake[V]
my brother served in iraq and afganistan. He has now gone back as a private contractor for blackwater. there is not a day go by that i don't wish i where there beside him. [V]0 -
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
vess1 you are a wise man.
Thank you for your sensible and well thought out remarks.
This war is the greatest disaster ever undertaken by an American President, and Bush is too stupid and stubborn to even realize that it is a mistake.
We will suffer for decades on account of the Iraq debacle.
Thanks for the compliments Allen. I normally enjoy your posts as well.
I didn't come here to try to fight a battle between the military minded and the civilian sector. I understand the military has their place and they serve this country as they are told.
I realize it does nothing for them for me to say I feel bad for all the guys over there and what their families have to go through on an ongoing basis. It's amazing to me really. I know there's benefits but I can't even imagine having to be at the whim of this administration.
I agree that everyone involved deserves relief. But people are completely missing the ball on this one. People want a draft for the relief? There are a lot of kids that should NEVER be allowed to put on a uniform and would never deserve to. And yet people here want them to. Lets pull the knee jerk reaction and put every retard we can find in uniform and put bodies on the ground. That'll teach these good for nothing kids. That'll surely fix everything in Iraq! Then everybody will have respect for the U.S. armed services. Suuuuure.
IMO, the relief needs to come from people finally realizing that Iraq is a disaster, so we need to get out. A few greedy b@%tards at the top are profiting immensely from the continuation of this occupation while trying to rally support from the public and military families by playing the pride card. Most will abandon simple logic over pure American pride. In the mean time, it's legalized extortion of our taxes that we can't do anything about and sadly, just a little mess on the side compared to the big picture. Politicians playing with people's lives.
Some here would trust Bush no matter what he does or says. If he says Al-Queda's (8th) # 2 man is in Fiji, then these people are all for sending half our military to converge on Fiji. (It's a rat race!) They also trust that the military has a clue what they're doing and that they're not simply puppets on strings.
If we end up with Hillary Clinton over this crap and they end up pulling the plug like they're itching to do, it's going to be a very hard pill for some here to swallow when they come to the realization it may as well had been done YEARS ago, because the end result equals THE SAME as it would have then. People are too stuborn to realize that there are some things you can't change! And there are some things that are inevitable.
It isn't our fault. I'm satisfied that we gave them every chance we could. It isn't cut and run tactics. Not at all. It's coming to a conclusion that an experiment was not totally planned for, it is not working, it can't work, therefore it is absolutely foolish to expend valuable *American* resources and lives on a piece of trash, UNGRATEFUL country any longer.
Short of Iraq becoming a U.S. colony defended by U.S. troops forever, I seriously cannot dream up a single, possible, long term, positive outcome from this when we leave, no matter what. No matter how long we stay! I doubt anybody here can. It's surrounded by the arab world! Even if our little house of cards government made it a few years on their own, it's going to hit the fan eventually. But Bush is trying to convince us it will work!
They need dictators. They are not us. The people have no will! They're a joke! They're divided. As such, Iraq should be divided and given to somebody, anybody, with a government so we can dump this burden. What has Iraq done for us besides provide a place for good men to be needlessly murdered in cold blood by renegades who represent nothing? We receive no benefits from it. No free oil. It's never been anything more than a burden.
So some will say, "Since it will be a disaster if we leave, we need to stay." Bush style thinking. NO! We're there and it's a disaster anyway! Open your eyes man! The same suicide bombs will go off whether we're there or not. It doesn't seem to matter.
The one positive thing we can control is bringing everybody home now, saving us lives and billions of dollars. To me this is the only positive thing that can come of it and we control it and we don't do it. Only because Bush doesn't want to be blamed for the vaccuum we've left, AND WILL LEAVE EVENTUALLY ANYWAY. It really is disgusting.
Now some will say we need to be in Iraq killing terrorists. Well, that's a very good argument for the simple minded. The rest of us are aware that there are likely terrorists in every country in the world and we are not taking military action in every country in the world yet nothing has happened here. How people have convinced themselves to believe that ALL the terrorists are only in Iraq and Afghanistan, I will never know. The majority of them I doubt are anywhere near these countries anymore. It doesn't take a whole lot of people to wreak havoc, blowing up IEDs now and then.
I DO NOT know what the answer is. We don't have one yet so we will continue on with business as usual and 'stay the course', so as to create the illusion of safety. [V]0 -
quote:Originally posted by vess1
]Now some will say we need to be in Iraq killing terrorists. Well, that's a very good argument for the simple minded. The rest of us are aware that there are likely terrorists in every country in the world and we are not taking military action in every country in the world yet nothing has happened here.
That has been my point for a long time.
I would like to use my analogy if you will. Terrorists are like termites, the world will always have them. While we try to rid an infested home (Iraq) of termites, We are ignoring our own home (the united states)
If you get my point Close the boarders!0 -
So many excuses, so much fear of being drafted. Lets face it, the draft worked well in WW 2 Korea and Nam. Maybe not perfectly, but gave us enough trained troops which we dont now have. Draftees in wartime seemed to work out quite well. For a starter, the use of these troops on our borders would sure be a deterent to Illegal Invaders. We use the Coast Guard as a deterent for smuggling drugs. Why not troops for border guarding as the ICE and all others have misserably failed in this? I really dont know first hand how drafees worked out in Korea and Nam, but I do know how well they worked out in WW 2, which was just as good as those of us who enlisted. Whats the matter guys, have we became
a soft and useless bunch as of late. Excuses after excuses for not serving. As for calling these 18 to 21 year olds KIDS, that is a "liberal" view of a grown up person who is old enough to fight. By the time a 18 year old "KID" finishes basic training he will be a "MAN"
in most cases. And much better for his service. I like that one line in the song "Dogface Soldier": "Their tearing me down to build me over again ",. How true. From a soft civilian kid, to a soldier with pride.0 -
"...a soft and useless bunch "
-Joe
You've got it, Joe.
Doug0 -
This passage is from the novel "Monte Cassino" by Matthew Parker...it concerns the attack of of the U.S. 36th "Texas" Division across the Rapido river during the Cassino campaign
quote:
Bill Everett, a 22 year old from Baltimore, was in the Heavy Weapons Platoon in charge of a Mortar Section. It was his first time in combat. "I remember talking to my guys when we were taking off with our boat," he says "I told them that tonight they were going to have to pay their dues for being an America (emphasis added). They knew they had no chance of getting across because we had been patrolling that river. We couldn't even get recon patrols across."
Imagine that....at one time Americans actually believed they OWED a debt to their country for the freedoms they had previously enjoyed.
In TWO DAYS the Texans suffered 2,877 casualties, including 1,681 killed.
We are unworthy of their sacrifice......0 -
For the draft to work people have to go along with it. Regular citizens have to agree to a large extent that the Iraq war is worth fighting. If they don't, they won't enlist even if drafted. If 30-40% of the people drafted refuse to serve, the draft is not going to work. Plain and simple. Furthermore, I don't think the Congress would pass the draft.
This war has been fought by a VERY small percentage of the US population, around 1%. The average Joe and Jill have not been inconvienced by it at all (and that was Bush's plan). If the government suddenly says that 40% of the population is going to be serving or is going to have a relative or friend who is going to serve--well, I just don't see the American people going along with it. There's been nothing but bad news out of Iraq for years, and I think the American people quite sensibly realize that it has become a civil war that simply can not be "won" in any way that would be acceptable to the US.0 -
quote:gave us enough trained troops which we dont now have. Draftees in wartime seemed to work out quite well. For a starter, the use of these troops on our borders would sure be a deterent to Illegal Invaders.
I have no doubt a draft would provide forces needed to secure our borders and protect us from attack.
This isn't about fighting for American liberties, this opposition to a draft is because we don't know what we are fighting for.
I don't believe Iraq was a threat, most of America doesn't beleive Iraq was a threat, at least not an imminent threat. Saddam is gone now, and they don't have an effective government, they can't stop bombs from exploding in the streets, they sure as heck can't run a nuclear weapons program. Of course.... nobody talks about the WMDs any more, all they found were buried rusted unusable chemical shells that were crudely disposed of in accordance with treaty.
So we clearly aren't fighting to stop a WMD attack. None of the 9/11 terrorists came from there, following the intelligence leads points to Iran and Saudi connections.
I speak for a majority of Americans when I ask just what the F**k are we fighting for over there? Now you want to force me to put my life on the line without even giving me a good reason why? The only good benefits I have seen out of this whole debacle is profits for oil companies and Haliburton.
This is not WWII. In WWII we had open declarations of war from Japan and Germany (with the Jap one arriving just after Pearl Harbor).
There was a clear and unequivocal danger by a readily identifiable enemy who was willing to fight us in the open and obey (for the most part) the rules of war - they didn't pose as civilians, they did take prisoners (although they did not treat them too well).
The draft in WWII and a draft today would be VERY different.
If you proposed a draft where the fresh troops would be used to defend our borders against invasion. I would sign up. I will not sign up to go to a stuff hole of a country that poses no threat to us, and sit there in the middle of a civil war with no clear objectives surrounded by people who hate us, where my presence only serves to make more enemies for the United States.
Fighting "for your country", and enlisting in the military are not the same thing. I do not see anyones military service in Iraq as a benefit to our country.
When we do pull out (and we will), do not blame the CinC that does it for making our mens' deaths in vain, they were in vain from Day 1, we should have never gone in there in the first place, and to enslave US young men/force us into involuntary servitude to fight an unjust war is a reprehensible thought that can only be the result of some combination of: ignorance, idiocy, masochism, or egotism.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
76 comments