Draft Board Member says Bush is "in deep trouble" with Iraq troop levels

http://www.mail-archive.com/futurework@scribe.uwaterloo.ca/msg12637.html

Oiling up the draft machine?

<snip>

"The government is in a bit of a box," Lebow says. "They can hold reservists on active duty longer, and risk antagonizing that whole section of America that has family members who join the Reserves. They can try to pay soldiers more, but it's not clear that works -- and besides, there's already an enormous budget deficit. They can try to bribe other countries to contribute more troops, which they're trying to do now, but not with much success. Or they can try Iraqization of the war -- though we saw what happened to Vietnamization, and Afghanization of the war in Afghanistan isn't working, so Iraqization doesn't seem likely to work either. "So," Lebow concludes, "that leaves the draft."

<snip>

Even among those who think the public might support a draft, like Bandow at the Cato Institute, few believe Bush would dare to propose it before the November 2004 election. "No one would want that fight," he explains. "It would highlight the cost of an imperial foreign policy, add an incendiary issue to the already emotional protests, and further split the limited-government conservatives." But despite the Pentagon's denials, planners there are almost certainly weighing the numbers just as independent military experts are. And that could explain the willingness to tune up the draft machinery.

John Corcoran, an attorney who serves on a draft board in Philadelphia, says he joined the Reserves to avoid the draft during the Vietnam War. Today, he says, the Bush administration "is in deep trouble" in Iraq "because they didn't plan for the occupation." That doesn't mean Bush would take the election-year risk of restarting the draft, Corcoran says. "To tell the truth, I don't think Bush has the balls to call for a draft.

"They give us a training session each year to keep the machinery in place and oiled up in case, God forbid, they ever do reinstitute it," he explains. "They don't want us to have to do it," agrees Dan Amon, a spokesman for the Selective Service. "But they want us to be ready to do it at the click of a finger."

<snip>

see this thread for how Bush just allocated $28 million to have the DRAFT ready within 75 days from March 31, 2005!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=716016

draft the Bush twins... I'm sure those two fat lushes could work in a brothel in Mosul...

The United States will not have a draft again in your lifetime or mine. You can bank on it.

The Vietnam War basically put an end to that crap.

before the 2000 "election" too?
:eyes:

According to my forecast, Bush would win the popular vote but Gore would win more electoral votes. I wasn't too far off.

Man, if nothing else, I hope you are right.

eom

nt

Why do you think they just allocated 28 million bucks to reactivate it?

Did you read the article, or is this just wishful thinking on your part?

George W. Bush is moving to re-activate the DRAFT and have the first Lottery drawing of 20-year old men, as well as doctors, nurses, computer specialists, linguists and engineers by June 15, 2005, AFTER the 2004 election. Please help get the word out. They are soon going to have a Special Skills draft as well, meaning they can draft anyone up to age 45, if the Pentagon says they have a shortage in that area. Arab linguists will be inducted first, then many others. Lewis Brodsky himself said this was a priority. As it is, upon activation, all 3.4 million doctors and nurses under 45 will have to register with the SSS.

The official Selective Service site clearly says that $28 million is being spent next year to have the draft ready for activation within 75 days by March 31, 2005, conveniently AFTER the 2004 election. All Bush has to do is say "We are not going to Cut and Run from Iraq, but we have no more men. THe Pentagon has told me we need to activate the Selective Service System". The scrubbed Draft Board recruitment ad (the first in decades), was just the tip of the following $28 million iceberg headed for a home near you:

http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html (This was part of the Defense bill passed Nov. 24, 2003)

Strategic Goal 1: Increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the Manpower Delivery Systems (Projected allocation for FY 2004 – $7,942,000)

Strategic Goal 2: Improve overall Registration Compliance and Service to the Public (Projected allocation FY 2004 – $8,769,000)

Strategic Goal 3: Enhance external and internal customer service
(Projected allocation for FY 2004 – $10,624,000)

Strategic Goal 4: Enhance the system which guarantees that each conscientious objector is properly classified, placed, and monitored.(Projected allocation for FY 2004 – $955,000)

Total=$28,290,000



An annual report providing the results of the implementation of these performance
measures will be submitted by March 31, 2005. This report will address attained versus
planned levels of performance, explain unattained target levels, and identify where and
how strategies, performance goals, and performance indicators should be changed to
ensure that the SSS reaches its strategic and annual goals and objectives.

tie that paragraph to this one:

Strategic Objective 1.2: Ensure a mobilization infrastructure of 56 State Headquarters,
442 Area Offices and 1,980 Local Boards are operational within 75 days of an authorized
return to conscription.

They are reducing draft activation time to 75 days from the current 7-8 months. The first draft lottery according to this official document could be June 15, 2005.

Question: why does a dormant agancy need to be ready to answer all correspondence in 10 days?

They said "no plans" yet they are conducting nation-wide exercises far beyond what is needed for a dormant agency. This is really a plan to get the whole system ready for activation within the 75 days proscribed, although Congress must authorize the actual activation. They are trying to stop this discussion by saying "no plans", making everybody think it's off the table. They just mean Bush has "no plans" to ask Congress at this time. Yet on April 1, 2005, according to this he could ask for activation and have it in 75 days.

Also draft boards reported being "unexpectedly" asked during summer training sessions to fill the Board vacancies (salon.com from a Philly draft Board member)

Also Rumsfeld's leaked memo said "long hard slog" and "we have not made any truly bold moves yet"--and that was after Iraq and Afghanistan.

They are even making sure the Alternative Service is all exercised and ready to go within 75 days of March 31, 2005.

This is called Performance improvement but it looks exactly like a readiness action. They are bringing the whole system up to 90% + operational capability after 30 years of dormancy. Obviously, with a war on terror this could be considered prudent (although you don't need a draft to catch Osama Bin Laden and several thousand al-Queadas). Then why did they scrub the Draft Board notice? Why not come say out front we are filling the Draft Boards and gearing up the system in case the President needs it to fight the war on terror?

Congress would of course have to approve, supposedly after a Joint Session by the President where he could easily say "we are not going to cut and run" (same was said in Vietnam). By March 31, 2005, the draft may only be 75 days away.

This change the dynamics of this issue, because people will say OK, Bush is getting the first draft lottery ready by June 15, 2005 if we need it. Now do I trust him or the Democrat more to not reinstate, given Iraq and PNAC?

In additon Brodsky, the head of SSS, says a priority will be drafting Special Skills Personnel: 20 to 45 year-old computer experts, linguists (especially Islamic languages), and engineers. All 3.4 million doctors and nurses under 45 will have to register at their local Post Office in 2005 if Bush gets Congress's permission. All signs are they will ask for the draft at that earliest possible moment and will probably establish the Special Skills Personnel Delivery System (like the HCPDS) even sooner, as soon as the election is over in November, 2004, although these computer programmers and engineers would not have to register until the draft was activiated.

I'm completely convinced Smirky is going to reinstate the draft AFTER the election.

Preaching to the choir.

And no matter how much they spend on "preparing" for the draft, they aren't going to implement one.

I can't even think of four people who would even bother responding to a draft notice. And that goes for people from every part of the political spectrum.

And I'm telling you right now that there ain't going to be a draft. The whole purpose of a high-tech military is to reduce the need for manpower, thereby allowing a nation to maintain a strong military while at the same time minimizing the need to divert humans from their usual roles as productive members of a society.

Look at all the complaints you are hearing from major employers in the U.S. about the employees they've lost to reserve duty in Iraq. Do you really think these corporations are going to allow any president to take even more people away from their jobs?

We will have a draft if Bush somehow ends up in office again (god forbid). Look at the people who support PNAC, and then look at who is sitting in the White House. There will be a draft if the American masses are stupid enough to allow Bush to take office again. You can bank on that.

Modern warfare is very different than what we had up until Vietnam. The U.S. military simply doesn't need large numbers of bodies anymore to execute military missions.

THAT is the real issue in Iraq. The U.S. has found itself in a situation for which it is totally unprepared, because high-tech warfare doesn't work against people who don't have a high standard of living. And sending even 10 million U.S. soldiers to Iraq isn't going to fix the problem, so there's no point in drafting a few hundred thousand.

They are trying to westernize and christianize a muslim arab nation.

Hi-tech gadgets, as you correctly pointed out, won't do squat. They thought they would "shockNAwe" them into submission. Didn't work.

What's the fall back? "Why, we can't leave. It would be a disaster!! We must win at any cost!!" Solution? well, uhm, uh, geeze, uh MORE TROOPS on the ground!!"

Guess who's saying that????????????? LOts of Dem candidates and congresscritters, that's who.

Your mistake is in thinking that we learn from our mistakes.

We very clearly have NOT>

and I have worked as a miltary planner at brigade level. The type of wars / missions we are looking at involve operations in densely populated and urban areas. These missions require large numbers of infantry and other groundpounders like MPs. The standard of living where we're going doesn't matter, it is the terrain. Sprawling urban areas like Baghdad eat up infantry.
Unless they are keeping the same units in theatre indefinitely, there is a need for a lot of troops. Doing this would obviously hurt morale and degrade unit effectiveness.
I might agree with you but for a different reason. The draft would be political suicide. But that might be what it takes to open the eyes of the couch-bound patriots that like to watch a good war on tv.

The Bush Administration put a former Giuliani police hack named Bernard Kerek in charge of security in Iraq. When they hired him, he was working as a warden in a rat-hole youth correctional facility in New Jersey.

The U.S. doesn't need soldiers in Iraq -- it needs brutal, well-armed cops who know the terrain and know the people they are dealing with. We won't find too many of them among the ranks of our potential draftees.

The best candidates for policing Iraq are Iraqis, not U.S. draftees.

the enlisted.

I do agree more bodies will not help. A small dog can usually chase a big dog out of its yard.

Rumsfeld doesn't want a draft. If he goes, he may be replaced with someone that wants the draft.

I am in a wait and see mode on this. Two things may trigger the draft, bush winning in 2004, or another major attack in the states. Watch Rumsfeld to see if he walks, or changes his opinion of the draft.

...anyone put anything past this group!?

Are you aware of bills S.89 and H.R.163 that are currently in committee in Congress evan as we speak?

Are you aware that the Selective Service System has been given $28 million to get the draft ready to go by mid-2005?

I think you better wake-up.

so let's hope you're right. Though for my part, I don't know how you can see the over-extention of forces in Iraq, the White House bloodlust for more war and the conscription machinery gearing up and call it nonsense.

Do you think they may have a hard time filling the slots?

get their asses over in Iraq and be MEN and fight their own war..Afterall, they've got a bunch of chickenhawks squatting in DC and want that oil, well, let them go there and fight for it. Let their lives be on the front instead of the young kids!!!

I will not send my two soon to be draft age sons to fight in some oil grab for the corporate whores. I will not.

Between South Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq, the US Army is stretched pretty darn thin. What's keeping Bushler and Rummy comfy is the thought of all the nice, new tactical battlefield nukes that they've got on order. Of course, having to use them if the spaghetti does hit the fan, say over Israel, means a very high probability of global nuclear war — yes, with the Russkies (and Chicoms).

What a bizarre thought process. It is clear to anyone with a TV or radio and a satellite dish anywhere in the world that Powell, Rumfilled and Bush* are running around the planet trying to bribe soldiers from other countries to go get killed in IraqNam. The papers are full of the fact that we have no soldiers left to spare.

It won't be announced because it would hurt your candidate's bid for re-selection.

He is young, but I have two draft-age and a soon-to-be draft age nephews. I do not want them serving under George W Bush or any warmonger. As you know, I also don't want them to serve under another draft dodger, Howard Dean.

Regarding the press: Yes, the Little Turd from Crawford is doing all he can to get other nations into the quagmire. My post was to describe the reason the draft is gearing up. There aren't enough active-duty personnel in the US Army to protect the nation at present.

Should war break out, without an adequate army to defend the national security of the United States (which includes Israel and our allies), the situation could escalate to nuclear war. Let me spell it out for you in crude language: That could end up in a war that kills everybody on the fucking planet.

FYI: My candidate is Sen. John Kerry. He is the best qualified person to serve as President of the United States. Please refrain from inferring I support Bush. I've given up a lot in this life doing all I can to bring him and those who support him to Justice. A President Dean would certainly do little, if anything, to make these people accountable. Heck, wasn't Dean's grandma a bridesmaid for Bush's grandma? Small world when you're rich.