NationStates Jolt Archive

Then you need to get your head out of the sand--the Army is starting to call up people like this (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04319/411224.stm) back into the service.

The paper trail is fairly straightforward on this one. Pistorius joined the Marine Corps in 1993. When he left the corps, he had a reserve obligation that expired June 25, 2000. The pool into which he would have gone is called the Individual Ready Reserve -- essentially former military available for service in times of emergency. After a few months of knocking around for work, Pistorius decided to go back into the military, get more training in his specialty -- cook -- and complete his reserve obligation with full-time duty. The Marines weren't taking back departed members who'd been out for a year, so, in 1998, he joined the Army, signing a three-year contract.

Pistorius was honorably discharged from the Army in July 20, 2001. His certificate of release attests to his accomplishments: Army Achievement Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Sharpshooter qualification. The upper corner is the spot in which the military lists a departing member's reserve obligation, the amount of time discharged soldiers, sailors and Marines remain subject to recall. For Pistorius, the boxes contain a succession of zeroes....

"They basically told me that my Marine Corps time doesn't count as military service," Pistorius said. Faced with a threat of AWOL charges, and worried that a spotless military record was about to be stained, Pistorius headed last month to Camp McGrady in South Carolina.
But lest you think this post is merely about people being reactivated when they've already finished their service, think again.
When I first spoke to Pistorius, by telephone from the camp, he said nobody had been given a physical. He told his Army commanders that he had a permanent back injury from a car crash. They were unimpressed by a letter from his chiropractor. His pre-deployment health assessment lists him in this word: "Deployable."

Pistorius spoke with his captain.

"He said everybody here's going to Iraq," Pistorius said. "It's unbelievable some of the guys they're bringing down there."

One man arrived with a hospital identification band still on his wrist. He'd just had knee surgery. One 48-year-old from Alabama had a hip replacement and fused vertebrae in his back.

"He showed them the documents, but they still made him come down to be examined by their doctors," Pistorius said. Pistorius spoke of a man called back from upstate New York.

"He had no teeth and he had arthritis in his leg," he said.
Now, when they're calling up these folks, and when you factor in that they're deploying training regiments (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-blackhorse17oct17,1,7470120.story?coll=la-home-local) to Iraq, you've got to ask yourself why. Simple answer--there's not enough manpower to continue even the current obligations. So all of you big talkers around here who have been saying you'd beat the draft by enlisting, I suggest you get your boots on.

Questioning the state?! You traitor! We need unity! The state can do no wrong!

If there is going to be a draft, won't it have to be announced at some point?

And a friend of mine has a nephew in the USMC, he finished training in May. Since then he's been sitting round waiting for his next deployment, to Camp Pendleton for more training. Why wouldn't they send him before the 48 year old.

Every week this comes up, Every week it is shown that a draft is a) un-needed, b) unwanted, and c) undesirable.

Give it up. It's been shown to be BS sooooooooooo many times I am absolutely sick of it.l
(I'm sick of putting down this Effing-GD-BS. I'm not going to post anymore on this for a while, beyond saying look up all the threads disproving your silly, wild theories.)
TTFN
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What do you think Reserves are for anyway?

Just to be clear, the only action to reinstate the draft came from House Democrats, HR163 to be specific.

You'll note that at the end of all that, Pistorius is home and not in Iraq. :rolleyes:

No draft, sorry to disappoint you. :p

"Still think there won't be a draft?"

Indubitably!

When an ostrich buries its head in the sand, it is actually looking for water.

First, note that Pistorius's discharge from July 2001 (well before Iraq) gave his service obligation as expiring in 2006 and was based on his 1998 enlistment, so this really is not a special case with regards to Iraq. Second, I doubt the military has changed recently, but chiropractors were not considered to be qualified to render medical judgments by the military as recently as 1999 - chiropractors are not doctors, and very often have very little medical training. Third, the military pretty uniformly requires anyone seeking release from military obligations for medical reasons to be seen by military doctors, for some strange reason there have been people in the past who have convinced doctors to lie about medical conditions or even forged medical documents in an attempt to get out of those obligations, I know of a woman 8 months pregnant who had to go to a Navy doctor to confirm her pregancy, despite the fact that it was obvious to everyone that she was pregnant, SOP.

If politicians actually think a draft will go smoothly, they have another thing comming. It'll be worse that Vietnam at home.

But to get on point: There won't be a draft.

You guys keep saying blithely that there won't be a draft, but what are you basing that on? The promise of the Bush administration? That's worth about as much as the gas you all collectively expel from your asses on a nightly basis.

Wake up people--the military is in disarray thanks to the way it has been misused over the last four years, and if we're going to even just continue our present obligations, we need a massive infusion of manpower. Recruiting and re-enlistment, especially in the Reserves, is down, so it's unlikely we're going to get it there. What's the other option? A draft. It's the next logical step, no matter how much faith you put in the promises of King George the Lesser.

Can I put my two cents in?

I'm in the military, currently (I'm an Army SSG). Our military posture is designed (theoretically) to manage wars in two separate theaters. Currently, we are deployed to a great many nations, but not in extremely large numbers. I will agree that we are stretched pretty thin, but we have been before, as well. The only measure regarding a draft was decisively defeated in the House (something like 420-5, but I don't know exact numbers). NOBODY wants a draft, and there won't be one. An all volunteer army has proven to be the best option, and the DoD has recently begun to up the numbers for active duty divisions.

What is left to do is to repair the damage done by the Clinton administration's downsizing efforts. By reconstituting active divisions and returning manpower levels to those of the 1990's, manpower won't be an issue.

An as to the military in "disarray", let me say this. It's not the last four years. Our Optempo is roughly the same as it was when the Dayton Peace Accord sent us to Bosnia under Clinton.

Recruitment is NOT down, and re-enlistment is on-par. The next logical step is not a draft, but a return to pre-Clinton force capacity.

Can I put my two cents in?

I'm in the military, currently (I'm an Army SSG). Our military posture is designed (theoritically) to manage wars in two separate theaters. Currently, we are deployed to a great many nations, but not in extremely large numbers. I will agree that we are stretched pretty thin, but we have been before, as well. The only measure regarding a draft was decisively defeated in the House (something like 420-5, but I don't know exact numbers). NOBODY wants a draft, and there won't be one. An all volunteer army as proven to be the best option, and the DoD has recently begun to up the numbers for active duty divisions.

What is left to do is to repair the damage done by the Clinton administration's downsizing efforts. By reconstituting active divisions and returning manpower levels to those of the 1990's, manpower won't be an issue.

An as to the military in "disarray", let me say this. It's not the last four years. Our Optempo is roughly the same as it was when the Dayton Peace Accord sent us to Bosnia under Clinton.

Recruitment is NOT down, and re-enlistment is on-par. The next logical step is not a draft, but a return to pre-Clinton force capacity.

But you are in the military ... you could not possibly know what is going on! [/sarcasm] (just jokin around) but I cant wait for the stupid link that someone posts trying to prove things like this

silly
There is no way the bill would be passed ... if it is a choice ... draft or leave the war, the only choice will be leaving the war

Anyone can find stats defending their position if they look hard enough. I'm sure there's some "think tank" out there that can "prove" that the military is in "disarray". Conversely, there will be another organization "proving" exactly the opposite with their numbers.

Take from someone who doesn't compile statistics...but has been in the military for ten years.

Anyone can find stats defending their position if they look hard enough. I'm sure there's some "think tank" out there that can "prove" that the military is in "disarray". Conversely, there will be another organization "proving" exactly the opposite with their numbers.

Take from someone who doesn't compile statistics...but has been in the military for ten years.
Ouch take that as a jab :) stats major :-D (actualy one of my majors is computer network modeling which is technicaly a statistics major)

"What is left to do is to repair the damage done by the Clinton administration's downsizing efforts. By reconstituting active divisions and returning manpower levels to those of the 1990's, manpower won't be an issue."

Daddy Bush started the downsizing right after the Persian Gulf War. Clinton followed through with the process when he was in office.

But you are in the military ... you could not possibly know what is going on! [/sarcasm] (just jokin around) but I cant wait for the stupid link that someone posts trying to prove things like this

silly
There is no way the bill would be passed ... if it is a choice ... draft or leave the war, the only choice will be leaving the war

It won't come down to that choice, though. The DoD knows we're stretched pretty thin, and knows the dangers of that. Mark my words...they are doing their best to compensate.

Bush, militarily, is not the idiot everyone thinks he is. It is political suicide (for his party, if not for him - I know it's his last term...) to further stretch our resources to dangerous levels.

"What is left to do is to repair the damage done by the Clinton administration's downsizing efforts. By reconstituting active divisions and returning manpower levels to those of the 1990's, manpower won't be an issue."

Daddy Bush started the downsizing right after the Persian Gulf War. Clinton followed through with the process when he was in office.

Yep, and he followed through in a HUGE way. It was necessary for limited downsizing under Bush 1. Clinton took that idea and ran a fucking marathon with it.

"Yep, and he followed through in a HUGE way. It was necessary for limited downsizing under Bush 1. Clinton took that idea and ran a fucking marathon with it."

Clinton didn't add anything to the downsizing policies. It was all daddy's doing. Clinton just finished up in his administration what Bush Sr started. You know that some changes do span across administrations don't you?

"Yep, and he followed through in a HUGE way. It was necessary for limited downsizing under Bush 1. Clinton took that idea and ran a fucking marathon with it."

Clinton didn't add anything to the downsizing policies. It was all daddy's doing. Clinton just finished up in his administration what Bush Sr started. You know that some changes do span across administrations don't you?

You mean....changes span across administrations??? I HAD NO IDEA!!! (sarcasm)

So, basically what you are stating is that Clinton did everything Bush Sr. told him to do...didn't even make one teensy weensy change?

Changes span across administrations in concept, but not in application. Bush's idea of downsizing was in response to the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was a necessary reduction of forces.

Clinton's principle was not geopolitically related, but politically. It is pretty much universally agreed that we went too far in cutting back our force posture - Under Clinton.

Also, understand that the original philosophy behind force restructuring was to make the military lighter, faster, and more mobile as the "art of war" changed. You used to need 100,00 people to accomplish what now requires only 50,000. This is a result of smarter weapons, technology, advancements in warfighting concepts, etc.

While Clinton supported that idea, he also believed that the U.S. in general needed a smaller military...not to make it more effective...but to make it less expensive. That is how it was taken too far.

First, note that Pistorius's discharge from July 2001 (well before Iraq) gave his service obligation as expiring in 2006 and was based on his 1998 enlistment, so this really is not a special case with regards to Iraq. Second, I doubt the military has changed recently, but chiropractors were not considered to be qualified to render medical judgments by the military as recently as 1999 - chiropractors are not doctors, and very often have very little medical training. Third, the military pretty uniformly requires anyone seeking release from military obligations for medical reasons to be seen by military doctors, for some strange reason there have been people in the past who have convinced doctors to lie about medical conditions or even forged medical documents in an attempt to get out of those obligations, I know of a woman 8 months pregnant who had to go to a Navy doctor to confirm her pregancy, despite the fact that it was obvious to everyone that she was pregnant, SOP.

I cant believe you'd buy into that Anti-Chiropractic propaganda. I suppose you dont believe in Homeopathy either.


Anyone can find stats defending their position if they look hard enough. I'm sure there's some "think tank" out there that can "prove" that the military is in "disarray". Conversely, there will be another organization "proving" exactly the opposite with their numbers.

Take from someone who doesn't compile statistics...but has been in the military for ten years. You'd think thinktanks would try to be more credible. NS probably has more credibility than a lot of em.

You all say there wont be a draft because noone would go along with it. But I dont think these people understand what momentus changes are on their way. The Second Administration no longer has to worry about reelection. They are accountable to noone. And the entire government is being largely cleansed of "Liberals and moderates" and being replaced with idealogues.

Things are gonna get crazy up in this Humpy Bumpy.

I cant believe you'd buy into that Anti-Chiropractic propaganda. I suppose you dont believe in Homeopathy either.



Irregardless if they are qualified ... even normal md's dont count for the military ... it has to be one of THEIR doctors irregardless of the issue

"It is pretty much universally agreed that we went too far in cutting back our force posture - Under Clinton."

Universely agreed is a strong statement. The DoD wanted a small, rapid deployable forces. They thought large standing armies needed for occupation of countries was a thing of the past. I remember reading that they wanted to change their command structure to that familiar to the UK military, brigade based instead of divisions.

Now the Pentagon and DoD might of lacked foresight when they wanted these changes but to say that Clinton had the only hand of downsizing our military is a wrong statement. Many different parties were reponsible.

"It is pretty much universally agreed that we went too far in cutting back our force posture - Under Clinton."

Universely agreed is a strong statement. The DoD wanted a small, rapid deployable forces. They thought large standing armies needed for occupation of countries was a thing of the past. I remember reading that they wanted to change their command structure to that familiar to the UK military, brigade based instead of divisions.

Now the Pentagon and DoD might of lacked foresight when they wanted these changes but to say that Clinton had the only hand of downsizing our military is a wrong statement. Many different parties were reponsible.

I never said that Clinton had the only hand. I'm not even faulting what he did. I am only stating a chronological fact - that most of it happened during the time Clinton was in office. Fault or blame is irrelevant. But it IS pretty much universally agreed that, during that time frame, we went too far.

I cant believe you'd buy into that Anti-Chiropractic propaganda. I suppose you dont believe in Homeopathy either.


You'd think thinktanks would try to be more credible. NS probably has more credibility than a lot of em.

You all say there wont be a draft because noone would go along with it. But I dont think these people understand what momentus changes are on their way. The Second Administration no longer has to worry about reelection. They are accountable to noone. And the entire government is being largely cleansed of "Liberals and moderates" and being replaced with idealogues.

Things are gonna get crazy up in this Humpy Bumpy.

Look. Let's just agree to disagree, ok? We can go on and on, supporting our issues...but you're not going to change my mind, and I am not going to change yours. I guess we just have to wait and see.

"Also, understand that the original philosophy behind force restructuring was to make the military lighter, faster, and more mobile as the "art of war" changed. You used to need 100,00 people to accomplish what now requires only 50,000. This is a result of smarter weapons, technology, advancements in warfighting concepts, etc.

While Clinton supported that idea, he also believed that the U.S. in general needed a smaller military...not to make it more effective...but to make it less expensive. That is how it was taken too far."

Yes, we need less soldiers to do the same job than before. This is true for a standoff war that almost everyone thought we were going to fight in the future. But in Iraq now technology gets nullified at street level. Having a smartbomb means nothing when you need to sweep houses in Fallujah.

I will agree to agreeto disagree if you agree that the new form of military recruitment could be indicative of a draft sometime in the future.

over the next 4 years I'm sure Bush will be after Iran, Syria, or N Korea. We don't have enough people to do any of that. I think there is a good chance of one, and it sucks.

:mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

"Also, understand that the original philosophy behind force restructuring was to make the military lighter, faster, and more mobile as the "art of war" changed. You used to need 100,00 people to accomplish what now requires only 50,000. This is a result of smarter weapons, technology, advancements in warfighting concepts, etc.

While Clinton supported that idea, he also believed that the U.S. in general needed a smaller military...not to make it more effective...but to make it less expensive. That is how it was taken too far."

Yes, we need less soldiers to do the same job than before. This is true for a standoff war that almost everyone thought we were going to fight in the future. But in Iraq now technology gets nullified at street level. Having a smartbomb means nothing when you need to sweep houses in Fallujah.

True, but that's an entirely different issue.

I will agree to agreeto disagree if you agree that the new form of military recruitment could be indicative of a draft sometime in the future.

1. That's not agreeing to disagree.

2. I don't think that current military recruitment is indicative of anything other than it's effort to recruit...which you don't do in a draft. The two systems are so diametrically opposed, that one can not be indicative of the other.

I never said that Clinton had the only hand. I'm not even faulting what he did. I am only stating a chronological fact - that most of it happened during the time Clinton was in office. Fault or blame is irrelevant. But it IS pretty much universally agreed that, during that time frame, we went too far.

Uh, wait a second. First of all, hindsight is almost always 20/20. After the first Gulf War, there was a pretty good concencus that there wasn't going to be a need to have to operate full wars in two seperate theaters due to the collapse of the communist and eastern block countries. All we were going to 'need' a military for was very fast special operations type units and strategic and tactical distance launched weapons. This was long before Sept. 11 and was even thought of as reasonable after the first attacks on New York (1993 World Trade Center, which idiots out there didn't think they weren't going to try that again, hint: not me).

Secondly, the type and size of military we maintain is directly related to our foreign policy and international relations postures. If we reversed course and went to a predominantly defensive posture, we wouldn't need as many aircraft carriers or special ops personnel, however, we would probably need more coastal patrol type craft and more people inspecting cargo. If we ever started minding our own business (which we won't, at least under this current crop of stooges, sorry, but I disagree with your Bush assessment) we could drastically reduce the size and expense of all the military branches.

"True, but that's an entirely different issue."

My point is that you said that Clinton cut our forces down too far. Yes, our forces are too small for the job in Iraq now. That is because almost no one in the 90's saw a need for huge military anymore. Everyone wanted a smaller military.

Remember that Clinton had to deal with a GOP controlled Congress for 6 out of the 8 years he held office. Any cut to the military funding needed to pass though that Congress and anything too drastic to Republicans would of been shot down.

This whole topic is inane. Did no one else pick up that during the Presidential election, only one candidate was running on a platform of adding more troops to the military? Yeah, and that was John Kerry.

He said that when and if he became President, he would add 40,000 (I believe, you might wanna check the exact number) troops. With an all-volunteer army, you cannot "add" 40,000 troops. The 40,000 citizens have to have the desire to serve their country and be ready to die for it...something very few people wanted to do if Kerry began to follow through on his stances in Iraq. Why? Because Kerry's stances were eerily similar to the same disengagement plan from Vietnam...the one he very strongly criticized because it would mean that soldiers would die after we'd already quit fighting.

There won't be a draft. The United States of America is not a tyranny in any sense of the word. There isn't even the remotest chance that the citizens of this country would ever support a draft again - unless we were being invaded by a country such as China that could bring over millions of people and fight old-school style. And, since, we aren't geographically connected with China or any other country with a huge population, they would have to ship their soldiers over...meaning we would bomb their boats.

Just look around you and open your eyes for once. The American people don't want a draft and will never allow the government (which we control) to implement one.

And the biggest reason? There are plenty of Americans who see their country as something that is bigger than themselves and is more important than their desires and comforts. So they volunteer to put themselves at risk in order to fight over ideals and protect the people who don't have the patriotism or physical ability that they do.

(***Note: I am not limiting patriotism to just the people in the military, although my words can easily be misconstrued to seem so. I am just comparing types of patriotism, because most people that oppose a war are just as patriotic as most people that support a war. I say "most" because there are people on both sides that hate the U.S.A. so much that they want to see it destroyed. But that's another topic.***)

I still don't believe there will be a draft unless another war begins before we can pull our troops out of Iraq. If another war does start before we've finished rebuilding Iraq and withdrawn our troops, then there will almost certainly either be a draft or we'll abandon Iraq.

I believe that the Bush administration sees this to be the case, and that is why they are getting the draft program ready.

Combined with the talk coming down from Washington of a pre-emptive strike against Iran in the near future, I'm a bit worried.

This whole topic is inane. Did no one else pick up that during the Presidential election, only one candidate was running on a platform of adding more troops to the military? Yeah, and that was John Kerry.

He said that when and if he became President, he would add 40,000 (I believe, you might wanna check the exact number) troops. With an all-volunteer army, you cannot "add" 40,000 troops. The 40,000 citizens have to have the desire to serve their country and be ready to die for it...something very few people wanted to do if Kerry began to follow through on his stances in Iraq. Why? Because Kerry's stances were eerily similar to the same disengagement plan from Vietnam...the one he very strongly criticized because it would mean that soldiers would die after we'd already quit fighting.

There won't be a draft. The United States of America is not a tyranny in any sense of the word. There isn't even the remotest chance that the citizens of this country would ever support a draft again - unless we were being invaded by a country such as China that could bring over millions of people and fight old-school style. And, since, we aren't geographically connected with China or any other country with a huge population, they would have to ship their soldiers over...meaning we would bomb their boats.

Just look around you and open your eyes for once. The American people don't want a draft and will never allow the government (which we control) to implement one.

And the biggest reason? There are plenty of Americans who see their country as something that is bigger than themselves and is more important than their desires and comforts. So they volunteer to put themselves at risk in order to fight over ideals and protect the people who don't have the patriotism or physical ability that they do.

(***Note: I am not limiting patriotism to just the people in the military, although my words can easily be misconstrued to seem so. I am just comparing types of patriotism, because most people that oppose a war are just as patriotic as most people that support a war. I say "most" because there are people on both sides that hate the U.S.A. so much that they want to see it destroyed. But that's another topic.***)


You seem to think that John Kerry is the only one that ran for president with the idea of sending more troops overseas. He was the only candidate that came forward and was honest about his intentions. Bush is already sending more men overseas. Dont believe me? Ask my cousin as he's being shipped out with other RESERVES this week. You all seem to be under the assumption that Bush would rather leave Iraq than lose soldiers lives/have a draft. I would have to disagree. Seeing as how Bush went into Afghanistan before Iraq to go after the person behind 9-11 and then put into power an ex-haliberton Executive, before going into Iraq (basically forgetting about Bin Laden, oh yeah where is he? *latest Bush quote "I'm not too concerned about him right now" We now have troops dying/injured every day, so that now Halliburton may now have itself a gasline going through AFGHANISTAN, and for a double feature, they also get the oil from Iraq. Bush started a war and put our troops lives at risk for cold hard cash, and if he's seen as a hero by the American people with sheep's wool put over their eyes, all the better. I wouldn't be surprised if he started another draft by some loophole in the system, what does he care? he doesn't need to get re-elected, and he's gonna have plenty of cash from all the oil he's getting.

Questioning the state?! You traitor! We need unity! The state can do no wrong!

I hope that's sarcasm, 'cause sometimes on these forums, I just can't tell. :rolleyes:

hmmm...the difference between calling up reserves and putting together a draft...oh yeah...that's it

*rolls eyes*

Just a note: I won't dispute that Iran and/or Syria could be targets, but invading N.Korea won't happen for many years to come, if at all.
(Many years=decades.)

I still don't believe there will be a draft unless another war begins before we can pull our troops out of Iraq. If another war does start before we've finished rebuilding Iraq and withdrawn our troops, then there will almost certainly either be a draft or we'll abandon Iraq.

I believe that the Bush administration sees this to be the case, and that is why they are getting the draft program ready.

Combined with the talk coming down from Washington of a pre-emptive strike against Iran in the near future, I'm a bit worried.
You have reason to be worried.