Polls: Young fear return of draft

By Edward Epstein, San Francisco Chronicle

.. Polls show that among young people the prospect of a draft is a potent issue. A new nationwide survey of 825 people ages 18- to 24 conducted for Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland found that, for 46 percent of them, the possibility of a draft rates as an important issue in deciding whether to vote in November, bunched together with the issues of fear of terrorism and the war in Iraq, but trailing the economy.

Seventy four percent rated the November election as extremely important or important, indicating that young voters, traditionally a low-turnout segment of the electorate, plan to vote this time.

Another survey done for the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation of 1,028 people found that 32 percent of young people said they wouldn't serve if the draft were reinstated, while 20 percent said they would seek deferments. Forty-three percent said they would serve.

Youthful concerns about a draft to replace the all- volunteer military fly in the face of the positions of the Bush administration and Kerry. From the president on down, the administration has repeatedly said it has no plans for a draft. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld got in hot water when he seemed to scorn the past performance of the Army under the draft, which was abolished in 1973 except for the standby registration of 18 to 25-year-old men. ..

Ride Don’t Drive * * It’s Global Cool

... why is the current administration getting draft boards in order and staffed again?

If the army doesn't need the draft, why are there stop-loss orders for both active duty soldiers and reservists?

Some lies are so obvious, they're painful.

I know you're correct on the draft board's re-adjourning. Do you have an URL for it, for my purposes, and perhaps for new readers? I have a new computer and wasn't able to save my "favorites."

(it's currently not there on the DoD)

http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/defendamerica-draftboards.htm

... the official version of events is on the main page and in article archives at:

http://www.sss.gov

They claim that the request for board members is mostly a matter of turnover due to retiring board members. But, it comes at an odd time, doesn't it?

Cheers.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

... which, as you point out, has been ongoing for decades.

What is at issue, however, are the recent expenditures by the government to restock moribund local boards with members who will decide the classification of those eligible for the draft.

That strikes many as a preparatory signal for a return of the draft.

Cheers.

Of the draft board in my area, so far all that's being done is staffing, there have been no meetings of the boards yet. I was told that when they had all of the board members selected then we would be getting training on the rules and regulations.

I think that they're keeping things at a slow pace until it's decided who the next president will be.

Thanks to all above for the info.

Another survey done for the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation of 1,028 people found that 32 percent of young people said they wouldn't serve if the draft were reinstated, while 20 percent said they would seek deferments. Forty-three percent said they would serve.

The warmakers don't need for everybody to serve, as they would only need say, another 500,000 men (the fundy wackos won't allow women to be drafted), so if 1/3 said they would not serve, that would not be enough to stop them. 43% would go either because they believe all the lies and bullshit of the Bush Administration, or they have been conditioned throughout life to respect authority. They will just go because the government says they have to go.

Of course, if a draft is reinstated, the enforcement machinery would also have to be reinstated to confront those who do not comply. That would mean tightening the borders, restricting passports for young men and diverting resources from the Justice Department and FBI away from counterterrorism to rounding up draft resisters.

those of you concerned about your younguns might want to consider getting them passports NOW, before it's too late...

for my 14 yr old, for our upcoming jamaican vacation. but now i see that it's good for other things :evilgrin:

Deferments will be far and few. There is no longer a deferment for being married or for having children, like the ones Dick Cheney and Phil Graham of Texas received.

As for education, a deferment will only be allowed so that the student can finsh the year, a freshman in college will be given a deferment to finish his/her freshman year, and then they report for
induction.

As for taking off to Canada, forget that option, it seems this administration has that door closed tight. An agreement between the US and Canada, would require Canada to return those who wish not to be drafted. If people are going to run I would suggest Europe, with the exception of the UK and Ireland.

They won't have to use the FBI, they will be using military police and CID(Criminal Investigation Division)the military version of the FBI.

grandmothers like me who will go ape-shit crazy on anyone trying to take my grandkids.

They took my 2 years younger brother to Vietnam. THEY WILL NOT TAKE MY GRANDKIDS!

in fact they should be afraid, very afraid because if chimp gets in it WILL happen.

GIs marching away from re-enlistment

Army re-enlistments have dropped suddenly and dramatically at Fort Carson and several other posts where combat units have recently returned from Iraq.

The surprising decline within the past 21/2 months has jolted recruiters and military analysts and provoked questions about the war's effect on the Army's recruiting ability.

Since Fort Carson units began coming home in April, post recruiters have met only 57 percent of their quota for re-enlisting first-term soldiers for a second hitch, according to an Army report.

More disturbing, recruiters say, is they're re-enlisting only 46 percent of the quota for "mid-career" noncommissioned officers. These are the young sergeants with four to 10 years of experience who are the backbone of the Army - its skilled soldiers, mentors and future senior NCOs.

"That's a lot lower than where we want to be, especially on mid-careers," said Master Sgt. Scott Leeling, a Fort Carson recruiter.

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/america_at_war/article/0,1299,DRMN_2116_2961385,00.html

:think: And when did F-911 come out again?

The bit about the Marine recruiters may have opened a few eyes.

Posted on Wed, Sep. 01, 2004

Young Republicans support Iraq war, but not all are willing to join the fight
By Adam Smeltz

Knight Ridder Newspapers

NEW YORK - Young Republicans gathered here for their party's national convention are united in applauding the war in Iraq, supporting the U.S. troops there and calling the U.S. mission a noble cause.

But there's no such unanimity when they're asked a more personal question: Would you be willing to put on the uniform and go to fight in Iraq?

In more than a dozen interviews, Republicans in their teens and 20s offered a range of answers. Some have friends in the military in Iraq and are considering enlisting; others said they can better support the war by working politically in the United States; and still others said they think the military doesn't need them because the U.S. presence in Iraq is sufficient.

"Frankly, I want to be a politician. I'd like to survive to see that," said Vivian Lee, 17, a war supporter visiting the convention from Los Angeles,

Lee said she supports the war but would volunteer only if the United States faced a dire troop shortage or "if there's another Sept. 11."

"As long as there's a steady stream of volunteers, I don't see why I necessarily should volunteer," said Lee, who has a cousin deployed in the Middle East.


http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9556221.htm

Why that's the VERY SAME PHRASE the Nazis used about their invasion and "liberation" of Poland!

When the young republicans are in Iraq dying for their bush-god's lies, I will chant 'USA! USA! USA!' to comfort them. Hope they're saving up to buy their own body armor...

all for war as long as it doesn't include them.

If Bush is such a hero to these kids, they should damn well don the uniform and go do his bidding. War's great...as long as they don't have to serve and can watch the war movie marathon every Memorial Day on Turner Classic Movies.

<<<"Frankly, I want to be a politician. I'd like to survive to see that,">>>

Yeah, and frankly my daughter wants to be a veterinarian and my son a teacher...and I want them to survive to see THAT.

Edited to fix early-morning typing malfunction.

"The prospect of imminent death focuses our minds wonderfully" -Ben Jonson

The "volunteer" army is ALREADY drafted.

What I don't understand is why the "oh so patriotic" rightwingnuts aren't already all in Iraq dying (or at least bleeding copious amounts of blood) for their bush-god's lies?

Why are they waiting for the draft???

Or are they all just like their bush-god...COWARDS?

Manpower Concerns Raised as Pool Shrinks to Three-Year Low


The Army's pool of future recruits has dwindled to its lowest level in three years, worrying Pentagon officials as the service is being stretched by the unexpectedly difficult occupation of Iraq.

The Army watches the number of future soldiers in the "delayed entry" program -- those who have enlisted but have not been shipped to boot camp -- as a way to make sure it has enough recruits to keep training camps fully manned in the coming months.

That number has declined to about 23 percent of the number of recruits being shipped this year -- the lowest percentage in three years, said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, a spokesman for the Army's personnel office.



Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, said in an interview yesterday that the Army is clearly stretched too thin in personnel and equipment, with both taking a battering during serious conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan. He said using stop-loss and the IRR to fill gaps are dangerous signs.

"There's huge pressure to find any way to make their numbers," said Reed, who has worked to increase the size of the Army and believes the force still needs more. "They're just improvising every day. The fear I have is that there's an immediate cost, but also a much more profound long-term cost."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4013-2004Jul21.html

I've thought all along that the stop-loss was a way to try to make reinstatement of the draft more "palatable" to the public: "See...we have to have a draft because we just don't have the numbers enlisting. We HAVE to do this!" Then they wrap themselves in the flag and beat the patriotic drum, and bring out yet again terrorism and all the buzz words that everyone continues to eat up.

Does anyone know what they are planning to do concerning deferments and conscientious objectors? You know they're going to be closing those up pretty tight, even though some back in the Vietnam days used them pretty well to their advantage (Cheney). They're not going to make that mistake again.

The subtext of my question: What can I be doing right now to keep my 14- and 11-year-old from any trouble this a-hole starts should he get a second term?

(I already see myself in about two years down at the high school trying to keep recruiters out...that's how strongly I feel about this already.)

I'd have him make an "exam" on your teenager and issue a corrective lenses prescription for someone with vision barely above legally blind.

That way it would be easy to cop out as having unfit vision and there would be medical files to back it up.

All that works only if he wants to avoid being drafted into military slavery.

If he wants to go, then there's nothing you can do.

but it didn't work for me-I was drafted-blind as a bat-joined the Navy-when asked by the corpsman in boot camp to remove my glasses and read the smallest line on the chart, I asked him where the chart was. He thought I was a real wise guy and grabbed my glasses. When he came back from testing them, he asked me how the hell I passed the induction physical. Just lucky, was my reply.
I spent 4 years on active with the USN. Couldn't pass the commissioning physical for OCS because I was blind and half deaf, but I was good enough to be an enlisted man.

The best way to keep our kids out of a draft is to keep the political pressure on Congress to maintain the volunteer force. No draft - no problem. With a draft you or your kids risk breaking the law, and the folks they send to get you don't fool around. They don't care what yuour Mommy wants, or what school you have plans for attending. The only thing they listen to is political power. At the risk of repeating myself...
The best way to avoid the draft is to make sure there is no draft.

but my son is 19 and I'm scared shitless for him.

regardless of the language of the resolution there will be loopholes for the wealthy and well connected. It won't be any fairer than before.

It scares me when I think of all my classmates and what they might be forced into the army because of this.

:dem:

For the week of Sept. 6 talks about the draft. Read it if you get a chance.

http://www.newsletters.newsweek.msnbc.com/id/5852831/site/newsweek/

Leaving on a Jet Plane

A perfect storm of recent historical events would make a draft more divisive and disastrous than ever before in the nation's history

By Anna Quindlen
Newsweek

Sept. 6 issue - Most politicians think it's so radioactive, they won't go near it, and government officials keep insisting it's not going to happen any time soon. But the military draft is a subject that just won't go away, particularly for young Americans and the adults who love them.

<snip>

Something that the GOP will no doubt trumpet should democrats try to make an issue of the draft.

HR 163.

Universal National Service Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

HR 163 IH


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 163
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 7, 2003
Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.

the bill was a symbolic protest, as happens quite often in Congress, you'll find, and Rangel "stated that his intention is not to bring back the draft. Rather, by using an issue that holds a deep emotional resonance for many Americans, he is addressing the class disparity between the Americans who serve in the military and the civilians responsible for leading them. Rangel's draft proposal has one key difference from its Vietnam War predecessor: in order to equitably spread the cost of military service, it carries no exemptions for students in college or graduate school.

Two developments during the Vietnam War are at the root of Rangel's symbolic protest. The inherently unfair exemptions in the Vietnam draft allowed the college-bound young men of the privileged classes to foist their military duties onto underprivileged Americans. But that wasn't enough. Students at many prestigious universities such as Columbia were so insistent on removing even the specter of military service that they succeeded in causing the removal of long-standing Reserves Officer Training Corps (ROTC) programs from their campuses.

As a direct result of the class inequality embraced by Vietnam-era students, it has become acceptable, even fashionable, on many campuses for students to dismiss their citizen's duties and deny their nation-building responsibilities. In fact, elite universities have continued to discourage students from serving in the military, thus increasing the burden on the underprivileged classes."
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/01/29/3e3799b8d23e8

Interesting first post, though...welcome to DU. Tell the GOP to trumpet at will.:hi:

:yourock:

John Q. Public isn't going to listen to any such explanation, especially with Rove & company spinning it.
It was a dumb move, akin to handing someone a stick to beat you with.
BTW, by 1970, all college deferments were gone.
Today's military pretty much looks like America.

and the left alone. We read the small print, we understand complexities, we don't live by the sound-bite.
We don't just read the title of a bill and say "OMG, we're sooooo screwed!"
We can handle subtext and sub-plot. We are the thinking party.
It wasn't a "stupid move"...go back and look at the GOP's reaction at the time. It showed them up for who they truly are--
a pack of greedy cowards led by the greediest, most cravenly coward of them all.

But seriously, folks--the explanation is that Democrat Charles Rangel saw the imminent threat of the draft perpetuating discrimination against the kids of John Q. Public. So he submitted the legislation as a pre-emptive strike against the kids of John Q. Elitist trying to wriggle out.

:headbang:
rocknation

Kerry-Edwards seem to be fervent supporters of the murky WOT and the illegal War Against Iraq and I see nothing they can do to make those wars more palatable to the future cannon fodder and their families.

As long as the US continues its unwinnable & immoral wars there will be a shortage of bodies and therefore the need for a draft.

Will Democrats be lining up at the recruiting stations if Kerry is elected and the wars continue?

No way!

Every (and I mean every single one) rank and file Democrat I personally know is against the war and conscription.

The point is NOT bringing back the draft, but it IS the desire of the Nazi Republican Party to totally privitize the Armed Forces by hiring folks in the Third World.

Why draft a rich white kid when you can hire someone in India for $30 a month?

The Hessians are coming...

Mammon. Those kinds of armies might turn the guns on their masters over a missed payraise.

Even those who were duped into working in Iraq for Halliburton and Co seem to have realised that they were conned. Most are keen to get out. If the Republican party think that they can rule the world using mercenary troops alone then they truely are deluded. In nearly all successful military nations the ruling elite usually consider it their privilege, as well as their duty, to serve in the armed forces. The reluctance of many members of the Republican party to perform this task is a sure sign that the USA is in serious decline as a world power.

Like working with poor children in the inner cities or working abroad in poor countries, etc. The catch is that you're going to have to be "accepted" into this alternative service, and you know what that means, you're family is going to have be a rich Republican donor in order to get into the alternative service.

Before Rove easily spins the stupid Democrats' protest draft bill. Even Hackworth says if Bush is elected there will be one. How much more of a credible source does he need? I hope it's not because Kerry's afraid he might need one too.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/10/1654942.php
I just posted this link on another thread-
It is an Indymedia article in which the writer outlines
33 points or problems facing the government
and how endless war and a draft solves them all...
The author has a website FULL of analysis papers
that are not for the weak of mind. Very intense reading.
It is especially interesting to read some of the
older works and realize how many things he
has written about, have indeed come to pass.

BHN

With the complicity of well-meaning Dem dupes, it likely will be shrouded in a French style(universal draft, universal availability according to your skills) type of thing that will make it seem there are few fighting positions involved- and those all voluntary! The French loved to tell me how some general loved to have scientists and scholars washing their car for the two years. Slave labor. The GOP will love it.

I hope to God I am not giving the Repukes this idea. Being a French post war policy maybe they won't want to borrow there- but these are the amazing technicolor hypocrites after all.

Either the next calamity or war will jumpstart the draft and hide the fact that it is Bush himself that makes it all but inevitable.

Of course, if smirk manages to win this time, why would he care at all what the hapless US doltish masses think anyway?

They really do not want a large people's army, preferring to herd fighting pros with a bevy of vampirish private corporations, with corporate control of the government leadership. Back to the nineteenth century or the mercantile empires(all defunct) of various European entities, many of whom are now heartily despised by the neocon ingenues.

A serf army solves several future problems.
And George has indeed gone on record asking,
"Who cares what you think?"
I am starting to get frantic about getting my husband
to leave the country, because I don't think it will
matter at all who wins the election- it will not
change the agenda of the empire a bit.
Maybe slow it down, or put a different personality
on it, but the results will be the same.
BHN

against the draft. because he really would build the voluntary army where it is actually needed in a non-Empire fashion. His agenda would not require it. Restored trust and renewed talks and treaties would install trust not only in the world but keep our present people IN the military.

The best chance for avoiding a draft AND abuse of the personnel is to elect Kerry.

Don't ever ever say it won't make a difference! There is a slight alternate future history difference I should think between a Thomas Jefferson and an Emperor Ming the Terrible.

someone else does the dying.

You can bet that youth have a draft on their minds. Some are frightened, others are just resigned to what seems to be inevitable. Among my friends, we feel that even if Kerry gets elected, there will be a draft anyway. We're going to vote for him, but we're going to be holding our noses and praying for the best when we do.

As for myself. I am 20 years old, so I'm of prime drafting age. If there is a draft I will resist. There is no way in hell a President Bush or a President Kerry for that matter is going to force a gun into my hands and send me to kill or be killed. If I have to serve time in prison for refusing to fight for the rich so they don't have to, so be it.

I only pray there are millions like you-
No soldiers; no empire.
It's that simple.
The neocons can't continue their plan
to conquer the world without
cannon fodder- and they can't imprison
everyone.
My dream? Our soldiers the world over
simply lay down their arms and walk away...
That would stop the corporatists COLD.
Their castle of pain would crumble within a day.
BHN

leave the continent...
from what I understand, Canada has signed
an agreement to return draft evaders!
Think FAR away...New Zealand for instance.
My best friend moved there 6 months ago-
LOVES it! She is checking into some
possibilities for me.
I don't want to be here anymore.

BHN

of occupation will be needed for Chimpy's closet crusade against Islam.

and put it to good use...by kicking *ush out of the white house!!!

That with Afghanistan, Iraq, the possibility of war with Iran and North Korea, and even the issues over in Russia right now - a draft could very well happen - whether or not the Bush Administration says so or not. They may say "no" right now, but as soon as Bush knows for sure if he's in for another 4, I bet the draft is re-instated a.s.a.p. There's not enough U.S. military personnel to cover all bases. A vote for Bush is a vote for more war.

The situation in Iraq has four possible solution, none of them good thus you will NOT hear either Bush or Kerry mention any of them during this election. On the other hand when you vote you have to think which of these OPTIONS will Bush and Kerry take based on their backgrounds. Before I go on, let me make it clear the present situation is untenable (Through it is one of the four options). The present situation is untenable for the US does not have enough troops to provide security and until the US does have enough Troops this slow festering war will continue. It is the solution to what is happening now that has to be address and these are the options the US is facing:

1. Genocide. Just gas/bomb/nuke the whole of Iraq (remembering to Protecting the oil fields). You will have to kill 2/3 to 3/4 of the population (and maybe more) but when you are finished they will be no opposition. Can be done by existing US Forces just going Grid Square to Grid Square and killing everyone in the square and permitting no one to leave (They can enter and be killed but can not leave). This will take a couple of years and everyone in the world will object (and the Arabic Governments will be under tremendous pressure from their own population to do something to stop the Genocide) but it will end the war. Hopefully the American People and the Congress of the United States will also reject this option but it is the only option that keeps the US in Iraq without a draft (Through if the rest of the Mid East blows up you will have to quit in mid-genocide and go with option number two do the need to secure the rest of the oil in the Persian Gulf).

2. Draft, and instead of killing everyone in Iraq you put a squad of US Soldiers on every block. 2-3 Million men will be needed for this (We fielded a 10 million man army during WWII so this is doable). Every Meeting of any group (From the meetings of librarians to Chamber of Commerce meetings to little league meetings, all will have US presence i.e. troops to make sure the meeting is NOT used to start any revolt against the US Occupation and to stop such a revolt at the first meeting level. Total Tyranny. Can NOT be delegated to local troops nor foreign Mercenaries (Neither will have any reason to truly put down ANY and ALL anti-US Movements) In many ways this is what the US did in Germany and Japan in 1945 (through in both countries the existing political leadership feared the Communists more than they objected to the US Occupation so revolt was the last thing on the minds of the leadership of Germany and Japan in 1945-1948 period). Thus Japan And Germany were unlike the situation in Iraq where large groups of the Iraqi Citizens main objection is the US Occupation not the Communist (or even the Baa-th Party). The Draft Option permit the US to occupy Iraq (and its oil) while preventing any revolt from getting out of hand. Please note it means increasing the US Troops almost 5 times what it is today. Even a doubling of the number of troops would require a draft so this option is only viable with the troops one can raise with a draft as opposed to the volunteer army the US has at the present time.

3. Withdraw after setting up some sort of popular government, even if it is a government that refuses to sell oil to the US.

4. You can consider a continuance of the present system of occupation as option number 4 (And a similar situation occurred during Vietnam, the US couldn't expand the war and the US did not want to withdraw, thus the war festered on and on.) The problem with this option is the continuing US losses with the increase strength of the Opposition (and its increase radicalization) that forces the US to pick one of the other options as a way to "win" the war. Thus this is really not an Option but something that will happen as a result of a refusal to take one of the above three options. Sooner or later this option will force someone to take one of the other three option, like Congress did in 1973 when it forbidden any more aid to South Vietnam (Thus ending the war).


Now both Kerry and Bush say we can not withdraw since we are in Iraq. I disagree with that assessment (We can withdraw and sooner or later the Iraqi people will resolve the issue of who is to govern). Thus the real issue is how will Bush and Kerry look at the above three options. Both will dislike them and delay picking one as long as possible but sooner or later the Iraqi Resistance will force whoever is President to pick one of the three. Bush will always dismiss withdraw, he will NEVER admit his plan to take Iraq was a mistake. Bush thus will ask for the Draft to provide the men to put down the revolt. When Congress rejects this (For Congressmen and women want to be re-elected and in my opinion voting for the Draft will be the kiss of Death) Bush will go for Genocide for that would be the only option left.

People who have not read about the Holocaust do not realized that the "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem" was the result not only of Nazi hatred of the Jews but that other options to "solve" the "Jewish problem" had been cut off by the British Fleet. From the late 1930s shipments of Jews to Palestine had occurred. These shipments stopped when the Nazis Occupied Yugoslavia in Mid 1941 (Jews where still being shipped out of Neutral Yugoslavia in 1940 and 1941 to Palestine and this kept the Nazis happy). With the huge number of Jews in the territories taken by the Nazis in their Invasion of Russia in June 1941, a "solution" to the "Jewish problem" had to be "solved". To leave the Jews alone was unacceptable to the Nazis so with shipments to Palestine cut off that left Genocide. I fear Bush will follow the same bad logic, Bush will NOT want to withdraw, Bush will be denied the troops needed to stay, thus Bush will go to Genocide to "destroy the Criminal Elements" opposing the US Occupation.

Please note the two options Bush will consider will be the Draft or Genocide (Bush will reject withdraw). Bush will prefer the Draft for Bush needs some of the Iraqi Workers to help pump the oil, but to Bush control of the oil is the most important objective of the War on Iraq. Bush may even Force Congress to vote for the Draft to "Avoid Genocide" that Bush himself would be planning. Remember the Genocide plan may lead to unrest in the whole Persian Gulf, and in such a situation the Genocide plan may lead to an explosion in the Persian Gulf and with that Explosion the need for troops that the US can only raise with a draft. Thus even if the Genocide plan is opt for instead of the Draft, The Draft will still come do to the need to occupy the whole Persian Gulf to secure "our oil supplies" (Yes, I use the term "our oil Supplies" for that is how Bush and Chaney looks at the Persian Gulf Oil). Thus even the Genocide plan leads to the draft, the only plan that does not is a withdraw, something Bush will reject.

On the other hand Kerry when facing the same three options, will reject Genocide first as the unacceptable option it is. Neither a GOP or Democratic Congress will give Kerry the Draft (Even if Kerry asks for it which I doubt he will) thus Kerry will opt to withdraw the troops (It will be his only option left). Please note withdraw will NOT be Kerry's real desire as to Iraq but the result of rejecting the other options as even less acceptable. This decision process may take a few years (The fighting will continue and sooner or later the fighting forces Kerry's hand). But when Kerry faces this decision the Least objectionable option is to withdraw (unlike Bush who will object most to the idea of withdraw).

Please note the above is based on Congress rejecting the Draft. Congress is a wild card in the mix. Any Draft will have to go through Congress (and Rangel's bill to authorize the Draft was to address this possibility). If you understand how Congress runs, you will realize that what happens is a bill in introduced into Congress for consideration. If it is an emergency bill (Look at the Patriot Act for example) it will pass Congress AS IT IS WRITTEN. Thus Rangel wanted his bill to be in the hopper. If a Draft bill is introduced his in already in the hopper and ready to be passed. The GOP leadership of Congress will have to introduce their own Draft bill but unless it is as fair on its face as Rangel's it will NOT get the votes needed to pass given that Congressmen and Women can say they opposed the GOP bill but Supports Rangel's Bills (This was the real reason Rangel introduced his bill, to make sure a true universal draft bill is in the hopper).

All of this goes to the calculations of Congress in facing a draft bill, will voting for it harm their chance of re-election? In many ways that depends on how many young people turn out and vote for Kerry this election. If Kerry wins do to a high turn out of Young People Congress will take notice and realize that to vote for the Draft is a Kiss of Death (and thus the Draft will die before it even gets to a Committee let alone a floor vote). This is true even if Bush wins, a high young turn out will show that the Draft is a losing issue and Congress will avoid it (Thus forcing Bush's hand to go to Genocide).

If on the other hand Bush wins and young people did not come out and vote, than Congress will take it as a clear message that the Draft is Politically Safe thing to do AND WILL VOTE FOR IT RATHER THAN SEE THE US WITHDRAW FROM IRAQ.

My point here is even if Kerry Losses, a high vote turn out among draft age people will kill the draft even if Bush wins election. A clear Kerry Victory based on a High Turnout of Young People will force Kerry NOT to consider the Draft and opt for withdraw. Kerry is a political Animal and will follow how the votes go, if he wins AND young people did not vote, Congress will notice this AND vote for the draft as the easier political solution than withdrawing from Iraq. Kerry will accept Congresses lead on that subject.

Thus my big point is Young people MUST get Registered and Vote. It is they best chance to stop the draft. Next year will be to late. 2006 will be to late.

...It just isn't going to happen.

Training draftees isn't compatible with training as it is currently conducted.

Doctrine utilizing trained draftees isn't compatible with current doctrine.

Even if willing and able to afford the expense of expanding training facilities to handle more throughput of trainees, the practicality of making the changes required in Basic Training and in warfighting doctrine, especially in an era where these things are being reformulated WRT Defense Transformation, makes it a no go for a mortal certainty.

When things really escalate and the U.S. doesn't have enough Armed Forces to send around? Will they withdraw at that point or what will they do? Bush seems determined to keep moving forward, and he'll do whatever he has to to keep things going in that direction. Look at what is happening to Social Security - 17% increase in premiums and 1.5 billion in education funding for next year. Do you really think that they couldn't round up training money if they wanted to? I think a draft is inevitable with Bush for sure - it's just a matter of time.