KERRY'S NO-DRAFT PLAN vs. BUSH SPENDING $28 MIL to reactivate DRAFT!

This summer Bush is reducing DRAFT ACTIVATION time by having the SSS conduct NATIONWIDE EXERCISES to test the whole system, even to the point of filling all DRAFT BOARD vacancies and gearing up the Alternative Service for COs for the first time in three decades. With the current reactivation plan due to go into effect in a few weeks, the SSS must report to the Director on March 31, 2005 they are tuned up and ready to conscript within 75 days of reauthorization from Congress (just a trigger resolution is needed, no new law). The first lottery for 20 year-olds could be June 15, 2005.

http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

That's what Bush is doing. Quietly oiling up the DRAFT Machinery for Spring 2005.

Before 130 College Paper Editors in April, Kerry when asked about the draft said "NO. NO DRAFT."

Kerry's NO-DRAFT plan to raise 40,000 additional troops and avoid reinstatement of the draft is added up this way (my synthesis):

1. Move some paper-pushers to combat (lots of potential there in nearly a million non-active-duty)
2. Increase enlistment with real scholarships and pay raises
3. Let troops know Special Ops will hunt al-Queda, no more invasions needed, so Guard/Reserve re-up rate goes up. "Primarily a law enforcement effort, not a full military effort", say JK on MTP last Sunday.
4. Start a "Civilian Stability Corps" that would help in reconstructing Afghanistan and Iraq and relieve military pressure.
5. GET FOREIGN TROOPS TO COME INTO INSTEAD OF LEAVE IRAQ!!

http://www.candidatemap.com

"...I propose that we enlist thousands of them in a Civilian Stability Corps, a reserve organization of volunteers ready to help win the peace in troubled places. Like military reservists, they will have peacetime jobs; but in times of national need, they will be called into service to restore roads, renovate schools, open hospitals, repair power systems, draft a constitution, or build a police force. A Civilian Stability Corps can bring the best of America to the worst of the world—and reduce pressure on the military."
< Source: Kerry, John. "Protecting Our Military Families in Times of War: A Military Family Bill of Rights." March 17, 2004. http://johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0317.html >

With this NO-DRAFT PLAN, Kerry will not have to resort to conscription, even after Bush screwed the whole thing up.


From STOPTHEDRAFT.COM

http://technologyreports.net/stopthedraft/?articleID=2550

What do a former fighter pilot in the National Guard and a former officer in the Navy have in common? Both have promised not to reinstate the military draft if elected president.

Senator John Kerry has promised that if elected president he will not reinstate the military draft, but will increase troop numbers by 40,000.

President Bush and his staff have also promised the American public that there are no plans to reinstate the military draft.

-snip-

John Kerry wants to deploy 40,000 more troops to Iraq and finish the job quickly. Yet when asked how he would do it, he said that a draft is not needed and people will enlist. To his advantage, however, Senator Kerry was an anti-war activist after serving his duties as a Navy officer in the Vietnam War and knows first-hand the pitfalls of the military draft.

-snip-

Kerry said on MTP that we don't need to invade whole nations beyond Afghanistan. He has a plan to increase 40,000 troops without a draft, a plan to bring in foreign troops to Iraq.

There's this: http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2004_0330b.html

“When I returned from service in the military, I testified to the Congress about the racism in the military, about the lopsided application of the draft, the impact that it had on minority communities, the lopsided number of casualties, both African-American and Hispanic, predominantly.

“And I testified to the Congress about the inequality of the application of the draft and the way in which they were treated when they came home, left in communities that were neglected and lacked health care and education and other issues.”


Also this: http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_1203a.html

"Kerry also said he doesn’t believe there is a need to reinstate the draft, a source of conflict during the Vietnam War. "

You know, if you need more soldiers, you raise military pay. That's the free market way. Unfortunately, raising military pay might actually force wealthy people to make a tiny sacrifice to help PAY for the war. God forbid wealthy people be asked to sacrifice their gold for the war effort.

They'll gladly take blood from the poor grunts, but they don't dare take one nickel from Dick Cheney's mound of gold.

I never thought of it as a free market situation, but, of course it is.

Will definitely use that point in future discussions....thanks.

...especially with re-enlistment rates getting lower and lower as the war drags on. The numbers don't add up.

I saw a poll the other day that says only 12% of Democrats support the ongoing war in Iraq. And the latest polls show that only 1/2 of the total population thinks we're doing the right thing in Iraq right now.

So why don't we put the pressure on Kerry to end the war? After all, 88% of Democrats are against it!

I don't give a damn if he is the nominee or not, I'll still vote for him, but the longer the war drags on, the bigger an issue it will be.

And if Kerry doesn't realize this and start taking a stand, he's going to be in sorry shape come November.

In the hopes that it is, all it takes to enlarge the military by 40,000 is for Congress to pass a bill authorizing it, and providing the funds.

saw a poll the other day that says only 12% of Democrats support the ongoing war in Iraq. And the latest polls show that only 1/2 of the total population thinks we're doing the right thing in Iraq right now.

So why don't we put the pressure on Kerry to end the war? After all, 88% of Democrats are against it!

For two reasons:

1) The war is over. We are now occupying Iraq.

2) Most Democrats oppose a pullout. That's why you cited the #'s of those "opposed to Iraq", and "who think we're not doing the right thing in Iraq", but not the #'s of Dems who want the US to pullout of Iraq. You're 88% figure is fiction.

A situation where one U.S. president who has lost all credibility for the U.S. internationally, because he ignored international law, with another president who will lose further credibility internationally by ignoring international law, which pretty much says, it you broke it, you fix it, it you go to war with a nation, and overthtrow a regime, you are obigated by international law to not leave that nation until you have established a secure government an political situation.

The war is NOT over, legally, according to every international accord, until we completely repair what we destroyed, see that a stable government, based on the self determination of the people of the nation is in place,(with the United Nations) Thus assuring that the regime that was changed is simply not replaced by another dictatorial regime.

To do otherwise is to give tacit approval to the idea that the U.S. has no obligation to abide by international obligations it has accepted by being a signatory to the U.N. Charter, the Geneva, and other international conventions.

Stating that we should leave is to agree with the very principals that Bush followed in order to invade Iraq. That we have no obligations to abide by international laws we find inconvenient.

Hell no you wouldn't! You'd ask him to pay for it, and take the money and hire your own carpenter.

Just because "we broke it" does NOT mean that we are the ONLY ones qualified to "fix it". By imposing OUR solution on Iraq, we are just adding insult to injury.

The US needs to relinquish ALL CONTROL of Iraq: economic, social AND military. It also needs to pay for what it broke. HOWEVER, it does not mean that it has to fix things, or that it SHOULD fix things.

The US has been at war with Iraq since 1991. We've waged an illegal low-intensity war against them for 13+ years, leading to the deaths of over 1/2 million innocent children. Do you HONESTLY think we have any credibility going in there and doing what's in the best interest of the citizens of Iraq?

Your semantic summersaults may make good right-wing talking points, but they obscure the truth: The "War" in Iraq continues every day, despite what "Mission Accomplished" said.

If you don't believe me, ask the families of the 600+ troops who have been killed since the "end of hostilities" a year ago.

As I stated, the poll I saw said that only 12% supported the ongoing war in Iraq-- which is exactly what it is: an ongoing guerilla war against the US. If you choose to believe the talking points from the DLC and BushCo, you do so at your own risk.

In the hopes that it is, all it takes to enlarge the military by 40,000 is for Congress to pass a bill authorizing it, and providing the funds

Ah yes, answering the question without really answering the question itself! Brilliant tactical move! You must be a consultant of some sort IRL. How can I tell? Because you've just told me something that I already know and don't have a clue as to the question I asked!

My question is a little deeper than that: with re-enlistment numbers falling, and new enlistments following suit, how exactly does Kerry propose to increase the size of the military by 40,000, WITHOUT a draft?

Enlarging the military is NOT the answer. Ending the war in Iraq IS.

Thousands from the 1.4 million in logistics who are not currently part of the 500,000 active duty troops.

Thousands from increased enlistment and re-up rates once the troops know that a Silver Star Winner is president and not AWOL

Thousands from increased enlistment and re-up rates once the troops are given Kerry's pay and benefit raises along with real scholarships and full medical care. They had this and Bush took a lot of it away!

Thousands replaced by civilians from the volunteer Civilian Stability Corps

Thousands in Iraq replaced by NATO, including the French, troops. Don't forget that Kerry looks French and the French love him and hate Bush. They will help Kerry to get contracts and put their thumb in Bush's eye.

Plus Kerry sees catching al-Queda as a law issue with Special Ops. Less troops needed there then.

Plus the 40,000 go to South Korea and other bases, although Bush just shipped some out of South Korea just last week.

In any case, avoiding the DRAFT can be done--as long as you're not George W. Bush and hell-bent on carrying out the PNAC Plan to dominate the Mideast and Central Asian oil.

Dennis says:

"will commit 130,000 peacekeepers to Iraq on a temporary basis until the Iraqi people can maintain their own security"

"The UN must be asked to help the Iraqi people develop a Constitution. The UN must assist in developing free and fair elections."

Is a secure and democratic Iraq more important than withdrawing the troops? Isn't stating that there must be a democracy in Iraq the same thing as "stay the course"? Especially if UN countries can't contribute the necessary forces needed "until the Iraqi people can maintain their own security". What will Dennis do if his UN plan fails?

We are stuck there until we can get out. The difference is with Bush who wants to stay there and get those 200 billion barrels of oil for himself and the new Tricky Dick.

Kerry can't say he's going to get out because America likes to think of itself as a winner. After the election, you will see Kerry be helped by the French, who think he is French, and we will have less troops there and then we will be out as fast as possible.

The rest of the world will eagerly come to the side of a President Kerry. It is in THEIR interest to help build a stabilized Iraq.

There will be dancing in streets all over the world on November 3.

I believed it for Dennis, and for Kerry as well. The world will breathe a collective sigh of relief when we evict Bush. They will be willing to work with Kerry.

Dennis' plan is great, and I still support it. I've always believed it would require a US President that inspired some confidence from the rest of the world. Same with Kerry's plan. I don't like the extra 40,000 troops, but I think we'll be less likely to need them with Kerry than with 4 more years of the wmd currently holding office.

Kucinich ALSO says that the US needs to relinquish ALL control of Iraq, including MILITARY.

Kerry, OTOH, thinks we should keep military control of the country, and have UN troops serve UNDER US command.

It doesn't look a like a difference, but it's a HUGE one to a country that has been battered by 13+ years of low-intensity warfare by the US.

The main thing Iraqis are revolting against is US CONTROL of their country-- economic, social, and military. As long as we're seen as the occupying force, there will be unrest.

I'm glad to see Kerry sounding more and more like Kucinich, but he STILL has to give up US control of the country before there's peace.