On Lutte's statement of the need for a draft

ok, ok, many of you know my position, a draft will definitely wake up the youth. So in some ways it has its advantages and why they have avoided it until now.

Positions aside... here is what General Lutte is essentially telling the Resident

Put up or shut up.

If this war is as important to the survival of the United States as oh WW II... the usual talking point from the right... then perhaps it is time to take this just as seriously.

Now what will bush do?

My personal bet is that we will hear the General is retiring by oh next friday at the latest, or he has been reassigned, preferably to the front lines.

But if Bush should listen the Dems should insist that any draft is enacted not by legislation but... by Presidential order. This is HIS war... make sure that the Draft hangs firmly in Bush's signature.

It is his cluster

It is him who has destroyed the back of the army.

Now I expect the dems to cave and "agree" that it is needed and pass the necessary legislation... but that is quite another ball of wax. Yes, they have proven themselves to be that inept politically

no exceptions

This is as critical as WW II? EVERYBODY serves

And I think that was the message

Don't expect any kind of equitable legislation to pass either.

After all, Mitt Romney's sons might have to put on a uniform

seeing as how we might bomb Iran in the near future, and who knows what that will lead to in terms of needing ground troops in Iraq. But now I just wonder if he he's telling the truth as the Army sees it, and wants to get sacked. Peter Pace contradicted the administration, but has since gone back into fetal position and is just waiting for retirement. These guys must know they're patsies, who will ultimately get sacrificed under the bus after they've been used.

but I think it is the army saying, look we can't do this anymore... we need bodies, fresh bodies, period

Vietnam in 1969 had what 500,000 troops deployed when the country is was only 200 million?

The population of the armed forces as a percentage of the general population is decreasing. Through the action of breeders and immigration the ability to get to a critical political tipping point is diminishing as we move into the future.


People don't like jury duty either. I am almost thirty and have never been called. What I am doing wrong? Is being drafted more likely than being called for jury duty?

but your chances of being called to jury duty are higher. Mostly that is the only requirement today for citizenship

You can choose to vote... but you cannot choose to ingore a summons for jury duty

As to the draft, there is no draft right now. So 'splain this one to me, how are you going to be drafted?

Unless we have a change in the law and we have an actual honest to goodness draft, you won't be drafted

That is what Lute is talking about, the failure of the all volunteer force... they need bodies, and people are staying away from VOLUNTARY SERVICE and they cannot force you, or most likely the 18 year old, into the service

And if there is a draft, and you have a mission critical skill, don't count on staying out of uniform... though your chances are lower, mostly due to age

people take risks when board airplanes or play the lottery. The nature and severity of such possible outcomes determine the reaction to them.

You always advocate a "universal" draft, however pulling unlimited numbers of young people out of the economy would cause undesirable effects elsewhere. It is unrealistic to assume that the military would ask for a draft that would cause maximum political opposition as well as undue economic costs. Did not the Soviet Union attempt to balance the scope their conscription with these other larger factors?

Why would the military industrial complex ask for anything other than the combination that maximizes fighting potential with the least public opposition and economic cost? As a gestalt entity it is self aware of its position in a larger system and what actions need to be taken to maximize the sustainable inputs into the meat grinder.

hell, he implied a universal draft. Which I happen to agree with

Now pulling millions of 18 year olds from the economy will do exactly what kind of a damage?

They are just ENTERING the work force and we don't have enough jobs to absorb them as it is, and more jobs are going overseas every day

So no, I don't see it the same way you do

Moreover, your average college student will suddenly feel compelled to take a stand

Yep, even the yellow elephants will be compelled to either put up or shut up

Now you will not be compelled since you are mostly out of the window of a draft, but the boys and gal from my brother in laws previous marriage, especially one of them, is well within the window. He has been mostly a I don't give a shit kind of a guy. You think he will not start thinking... oh shit?

And yes, I have had kids of the target age tell me straight out, they don't give a shit since this does not affect them. Short sighted, absolutely, but that is the mentality you are dealing with

Hmmm, in CT, they use several lists--taxes, driving, voting....:

12. How was I selected?

Your name was chosen at random from lists obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles, Department of Revenue Services, Department of Labor and the Registrars of Voters for the state’s 169 towns.

Names are randomly chosen every year. Every year your name has an equal chance of being selected and you could receive a jury summons every year. Only persons aged 70 or older who choose not to serve and disabled individuals who have provided a letter from a licensed physician indicating that they are permanently unable to serve jury duty may be permanently disqualified. There are no other permanent records of disqualification or hardship excuses granted, so you must ask to be disqualified each time you receive a summons.

More here: http://www.uscourts.gov/jury/selection.html

Before potential jurors are summoned for service, their names are randomly drawn from voters lists (and sometimes drivers lists) to receive a questionnaire to determine whether they meet the legal qualifications for jury service. Individuals who receive questionnaires are required to complete and return them to the clerk's office, which then screens the completed questionnaires to determine eligibility for jury service. (In some courts, qualification questionnaires and summonses are mailed together.)

Any person who fails to return a completed qualification questionnaire may be summoned to appear before the clerk of the court to fill out the form.

Eligibility for federal jury service is dependent both upon an individual meeting the legal qualifications for service and upon the random chance of having one's name drawn from the source lists.

Each judicial district must have a formal written plan for the selection of jurors, which provides for random selection from a fair cross-section of the community in the district, and which prohibits discrimination in the selection process. Voter records — either voter registration lists or lists of actual voters — are the required source of names for federal court juries. Some courts supplement voter lists with other sources, such as lists of licensed drivers. A copy of a district's jury plan is available for review in the clerk's office or at the web site of your local court.

It looks like the voting lists are the prime source for jurors, supplemented with other lists (I suppose they'd want drivers, so the juror could get to the courthouse, as well).

If you don't vote, and aren't registered, you're home free, it looks like...

I get called every three years, even though for several decades I was unable to report due to conflict with my military duties (kinda hard to do it when you are on the other side of the globe). But I always sent the card in, with my excuse on it. And I still get called now. I've been lucky, though--cases either dismissed or settled, so I was simply inconvenienced.

Also add the folks who became naturalized. We tend to take our duties more seriously

usual window

One year I was called three times

I should be due in another year or so--they're pretty reliable with me. After I reach "a certain age" they supposedly let us go...I'm not there, yet!!

The baby boom started in or around 1947 and ended inn 1964 (They was a severe drop in baby being born in 1965 compared to 1964 thus 1964 is considered the end of the baby boom, 1957 was the peak year). 1947 plus 18 equals 1965. One of the reason the US could go into Vietnam was this huge increase in people subject to the draft (1957 plus 18 equals 1975, thus the subsequent dropping of the draft was also permitted by the Baby Boom, by the early 1970s you had even MORE people turning 18). The baby burst came into force with the mid-1980s, but Reagan preferred to spend money on high tech stores then the expand the number of troops that were needed. Come the 1990s you had an even GREATER drop in people turning 18 (one of the reason Clinton cut the Defense budget was do to the lack of people that were turning 18.

As to the population being 300 Million instead of 200 Million in the 1960s, remember since the late 1960s the US has expanded who can immigrant into the US, in fact most of the expansion in Population (Through not all) has been immigration NOT birth. Births have barely match deaths (illegal immigration is also a factor). Given that the military want 18 year old males, and 18 year olds tend NOT to immigrant into the US (most immigrants are older or younger), the pool of people subject to the draft is SMALLER today then in the 1960s. Remember the draft pool is restricted to Native born between the age of 18-27. The percentage of people who meet those requirements is SMALLER than the pool. I Suspect we have a draft pool smaller then in the 1950s (The 1930s was another baby burst period starting in 1927, add 20 that is 1945 which is why people up to age 35 were subject to the Draft during WWII). People tend to forget that even Elvis could NOT avoid the draft, he served two years (Through it was more PR move by the US Army then anything else, my point even Elvis could NOT get out of the draft in the 1950s).

I could not find out what portion of the current draft age group is not foreign born, but military barriers based on gender and sexual orientation appear to be going down in the future. It is probably true that people are not as physically fit as in 1970 so I don't know how this would affect one's draft chances if not disqualified by asthma, obesity autism or other conditions that are today more prevalent.



http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1970a_us1-07.pdf

In the 1960 numbers the number of 5-9 year old were dropping, this corresponds with the end of the baby-boom in 1964 (and the decline starting in 1957). You had a 51% increase in the people between age 20-24 (The Prime Draft age) between 1960 and 1970.

Look at the age group in 2000 for 35-45 years olds. This is the group that came of age in the 1960s and 1970s. It is greater then the number of people turning age 20 in 2000. Roughly 6 million more people than the people who are 20-30 year than in the 1965-1975 period. 16% of the population in between 1965-1975, but only 13.6% in 2000. That is my point, we do NOT have the population turning 20-30 that we had in the 1965-1975 period.

Sec. 453. Registration


(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title (sections 451 to 471a of this Appendix) it
shall be the duty of every male citizen of the United States, and every other male
person residing in the United States, who, on the day or days fixed for the first or
any subsequent registration, is between the ages of eighteen and twenty-six, to
present himself for and submit to registration at such time or times and place or
places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by proclamation of the
President and by rules and regulations prescribed hereunder. The provisions of this
section shall not be applicable to any alien lawfully admitted to the United States as
a nonimmigrant under section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as
amended (66 Stat. 163; 8 U.S.C. 1101), for so long as he continues to maintain a
lawful nonimmigrant status in the United States.

(b) Regulations prescribed pursuant to subsection (a) may require that persons
presenting themselves for and submitting to registration under this section provide,
as part of such registration, such identifying information (including date of birth,
address, and social security account number) as such regulations may prescribe.

Here on the Homefront where it is "just" as dangerous...

yeah I know... going on the stump is just as dangerous as going over the wire in Baghdad

I mean all them IEDs, on the road to Iowa

:sarcasm:

helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president." Brave Brave Mitt Romney!

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/08/romney-my-sons-.html

Hell they ARE the beautiful people after all!

and boy they could break a nail doing some real physical work

but a draft in no way fits with Bushler's political plans.

He'd much rather his successor, probably a Democrat, start up a draft in order to carry on the Iraq mission with at least a modicum of continuity. (I'd prefer a radical break with the illegal war, but ruling elites always prefer a maximum continuity of foreign policy even when the government changes party.)

Bush will help ensure that the (presumably Democratic) President who succeeds him will resort to a draft by continuing to break our armed strength against the hard sands of Iraq. All he needs to do is keep on keeping on and denying the obvious failure of his Iraq War. He's committed all available reserves. The men and women who've already been to Iraq before, even twice before, are going again and staying there. The pace of operations is wearing them out and their equipment too. You can push people only so hard before they're no good anymore. Even apologists and advocates for the Surge strateg-ery said at the outset that this surge could not be sustained beyond Spring of 2008. There won't be new manpower for it, and the units committed to it will be "used up". And the genius they have running things says it will have to go on for around TEN YEARS. And of course, nobody has been demanding to know just what the fuck the Generals are talking about when they say first that the Surge is unsustainable beyond one "tour of duty", and then second that the military presence will have to be sustained for ten years... But I guess demanding that the irrational and crazy shit that drives American politics be explained in terms that can be reasonably comprehended comes from a misguided urge and will always lead to despair.

On January 20, 2009 George W. Bush will smirkingly hand over command of a demolished Army to his successor: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. "Have fun in Iraq, bitch!" he'll say over his shoulder.

The new President will then be caught between the urge to provide maximum continuity in the Middle East which ruling elites and key "allies" require on one hand and on the other hand the bitter medicine of a draft which may be necessary in order to continue those Bush policies, and which will earn him or her the hatred of the American people - and also bring that hatred upon his or her Party.

Whether that new President admits the defeat that Bush denied successfully for 6 years and cuts'n'runs or whether the President cranks up a draft to try and salvage the wrecked Army Bush has left behind in Iraq - it's ALL GRAVY TO BUSH AND ROVE.
The payoff is not that they succeeded, it's that they made others fail.

A good description for his job title as well.

As one of the "youth," I can tell you that we're very much awake. Look at any poll and you'll find that this administration and the war are both incredibly unpopular among young people. The only exception to that, I'd say, is among the Young Republican set. We're overshadowed by talking heads and old men who sit in skyscrapers reaping profits from arms sales. They're the folks who keep this going.

You forget, The President does not call for a draft, Congress does. If they want to get re-elected that's something they won't do.