US considering bringing back the draft.

[husmusen]

Linkage:

The Australian

 

<Adrian cronauer>

GOOOOOOOOOOOD MOOOOOORRRRNNNIIIING IIIIIRRRRAAAAQQQQ.

</Adrian>

 

O.K. back to reality.

Excerpt:

THE United States would "have to face" a painful dilemma on restoring the military draft as rising casualties saw the number of volunteers dry up, a senator warned today.

 

Joseph Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made the prediction after new data released by the Pentagon showed the US Army failing to meet its recruitment targets for four straight months.

 

"We're going to have to face that question," he said on NBC's Meet the Press TV show when asked if it was realistic to expect restoration of the draft.

 

"The truth of the matter is, it is going to become a subject, if, in fact, there's a 40 per cent shortfall in recruitment. It's just a reality," he said.

 

The comment came after the Department of Defence announced the army had missed its recruiting goal for May by 1661 recruits, or 25 per cent. Similar losses have been reported by army officials every month since February.

 

Experts said the latest figure was misleading because the army had quietly lowered its May recruitment target from 8050 to 6700 people. It has been suggested the real shortfall is closer to 40 per cent.

 

More at article linked to ...

 

 

Seriously what are your thoughts on this, personal, political.

 

Some topic starters.

 

1) I found it surprising, you've only lost 1700 people which, as invasions come and go, isn't shocking, I find it startling that such a minor casualty rate is supposedly "compelling" them bring back the draft.

Something doesn't seem quite right here.

 

2) As I alluded to in my opening, this does seem more and more vietnam-ish everyday.

 

3) Say you go ahead with this.

If you draft people into service, and give them some basic training and

then throw them into a house to house guerilla war against hardened

forces, who've been cutting their teeth on professional soldiers for a year

or so, they're going to get slaughtered.

IMHO anyway.

 

4) One could argue for the morality of a draft to defend the country, but I could imagine it could be quite demoralising if you were being forced to put you life on the line defending a country you couldn't give a rats R-E about.

 

5) Shouldl this compulsion apply to all citizens or will only males from families too poor to afford a lawyer be compelled to fight?

 

Cheers.

[Ophiolite]

1) I find it startling that such a minor casualty rate is supposedly "compelling" them bring back the draft.Something doesn't seem quite right here.

From your extract, quote (my emphasis) "Joseph Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made the prediction..." Do I need to spell it out?

2) As I alluded to in my opening, this does seem more and more vietnam-ish everyday..

Really? The similarities (and distinctions) seem no more apparent today than they were in the months leading up to the invasion, sorry, liberation.

3) If you draft people into service, and give them some basic training and then throw them into a house to house guerilla war against hardened forces, who've been cutting their teeth on professional soldiers for a year or so, they're going to get slaughtered.

But you have so many more forces available with a draft. And besides that gives you an opportunity to 'bow to the will of the majority' and 'withdraw with honour'.

4) ...I could imagine it could be quite demoralising if you were being forced to put you life on the line defending a country you couldn't give a rats R-E about.

Your imagination has not failed you.

5) Shouldl this compulsion apply to all citizens or will only males from families too poor to afford a lawyer be compelled to fight?

Vegetarians and those whose surnames are plant like will be required to turn up occasionally at National Guard barbecues.

[Mokele]

1) I found it surprising, you've only lost 1700 people which, as invasions come and go, isn't shocking, I find it startling that such a minor casualty rate is supposedly "compelling" them bring back the draft.

Something doesn't seem quite right here.

 

Ophi's right, the Dems have been using the spectre of the draft as a scare tactic to try to galvanize opposition to the war. It's not realistic, imho.

 

If you draft people into service, and give them some basic training and

then throw them into a house to house guerilla war against hardened

forces, who've been cutting their teeth on professional soldiers for a year

or so, they're going to get slaughtered.

IMHO anyway.

 

Actually, they probably wouldn't, on account of never having finished training. That's one of the reasons cited why a draft is unlikely: it takes so long to train a modern soldier to be able to do their job that a draft would basically be a waste of money and time, since you'd *never* get most people trained before their enlistment is up.

 

One could argue for the morality of a draft to defend the country, but I could imagine it could be quite demoralising if you were being forced to put you life on the line defending a country you couldn't give a rats R-E about.

 

Well, patriotism aside, there's the feeling on this particular war. For instance, I love the US, but I think this war is unjustified. I see a great difference between defending my country and this blood-for-oil exchange.

 

Mokele

[husmusen]

From your extract, quote (my emphasis) "Joseph Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made the prediction..." Do I need to spell it out?

 

I am not familiar with the intricacies of Repub-Democ' warfare.

Thanks for the info.

 

Really? The similarities (and distinctions) seem no more apparent today than they were in the months leading up to the invasion, sorry, liberation.

 

Well I thought it was a vietnamesque scenario too, but at the start of the war the US having to call up a draft wasn't on my radar, and from my

rereading of it, I agree it's all coming from the dems side.

 

Actually, they probably wouldn't, on account of never having finished training. That's one of the reasons cited why a draft is unlikely: it takes so long to train a modern soldier to be able to do their job that a draft would basically be a waste of money and time, since you'd *never* get most people trained before their enlistment is up.

 

On that regard I fear you may be wrong, I can see the yanks being in

Iraq for a while yet.

 

Well, patriotism aside, there's the feeling on this particular war. For instance, I love the US, but I think this war is unjustified. I see a great difference between defending my country and this blood-for-oil exchange.

 

I think that's quite a patriotic statement.

Patriotism is looking out for your country, not agreeing with it's leaders.

(I don't see this war being in the long term interests of the US.)

 

Cheers.

[revprez]

1) I found it surprising' date=' you've only lost 1700 people which, as invasions come and go, isn't shocking, I find it startling that such a minor casualty rate is supposedly "compelling" them bring back the draft.

Something doesn't seem quite right here.[/quote']

 

The extensive deployment of the force makes for a compelling case for the draft if your a Democrat, Rock the Vote, or Chuck Hagel. Nobody else is taking it seriously; least of all the armed forces.

 

2) As I alluded to in my opening, this does seem more and more vietnam-ish everyday.

 

Given a selective newsfeed, an active imagination and a poor sense of geography. A comprehensive look at the evidence reveals no meaningful parallel.

 

If you draft people into service, and give them some basic training and

then throw them into a house to house guerilla war against hardened

forces, who've been cutting their teeth on professional soldiers for a year

or so, they're going to get slaughtered. IMHO anyway.

 

They won't get slaughtered; ARVN, the international coalition and a US Army of one third draftees still managed to rake in a 5:1 kill ratio over better trained and equipped VC insurgents; it spikes up to 20:1 when you ignore in ARVN casualties.

 

On the other hand, you're exactly right. In the little empirical literature on counter-insurgency that exists, successful campaigns are characterized by highly trained and capable forces with small footprints tasked primarily to train, lead and eventually support native forces.

 

4) One could argue for the morality of a draft to defend the country, but I could imagine it could be quite demoralising if you were being forced to put you life on the line defending a country you couldn't give a rats R-E about.

 

I'm not sure why. The volunteers don't want draftees around. Those not in service clearly don't want to be there. Seems like everybody's happy except for those suffering from second thoughts about their service late in the game and liberals.

 

Rev Prez

[Pangloss]

This has been the subject of a growing amount of discussion over the past few months. It first came up for me personally about a year ago, during a discussion I had with a female friend who was concerned at the time that the war would reduce the enlistment rates. I (being opposed to the war but, I like to think, a fairly objective guy) felt that it was not a major concern. Turned out I was way wrong. Enlistment began to plummet last summer, as I recall, and I remember commenting on it in various places before the election.

 

Anyway, a few points, not on any particular agenda:

 

1) A returning draft would not be well-received here. (I'm putting it mildly. Read that to mean "riots in the streets".) (Edit: We cross-posted, but I'll just add that I agree with revprez that it's not something that's actually likely to happen.)

 

2) It's not necessary for us to restore Iraq's entire infrastructure, re-create its entire economy, and so on. What is necessary is that we not leave before an environment is created that may allow that to happen. I think everyone can more or less agree that creating some kind of democratic (rather than religious) government in Iraq will be the primary measure for success. It gives them a chance.

 

Look at it this way: No matter how great a job we do, it can still fail after we leave. And if it does, the criticism WILL be that we didn't do a great job of it. This is, I feel, an indisputable observation.

 

So we need to be less concerned about specifics, and mainly working on the broad strokes of democracy. When they're in place, the locals are trained as well as we can generally train then, and the basic environment for change and development exists, then we need to leave. As fast as our equipment can possibly take us. (Can we borrow some Concordes and A380s, Mr. Chirac, pretty please?)

 

On that basis, my personal opinion is that we will be able to pull out of Iraq within the next 2-3 years without the need for a draft.

 

3) There is a valid concern that there will be a long-term negative impact on enlistment, even after we're done in Iraq. I think this is a serious and important concern, and it should be telling us something about our internal feelings about our own foreign policy. We are tired of being "Team America, World Police". We have not forgotten that George Bush ran, in part, on a platform of NON-intervention in world affairs. We have not forgotten how incapable the United Nations is at putting its money where its mouth is, and we're sick to death of enforcing its worthless mandates, paying for its humanitarian ineptitudes, and just generally doing its dirty work for it. It needs to stop. No country on Earth (even China) pays TEN PERCENT of what we pay for defense alone. In fact, I don't think there's another country on the planet that has a total budget equal to our defense budget. We're mad as hell, and we're not going to put our children in harm's way for that kind of bullpucky anymore.

 

4) Just as a side note really, I wanted to mention that I personally watched that episode of "Meet the Press" with Joe Biden (it was a week ago Sunday), and I thought his comments were more or less valid, and not *just* partisan. Biden is a fairly objective and intelligent guy in general and I usually pay attention to what he says. He's one of the ones, for example, calling for moderacy and realistic cooperation by Democrats. More or less the opposite of guys like Howard Dean or Michael Moore. He's not a demogogue, in other words. But he's not above making Republicans look bad, and yes, his words have to be taken with a grain of salt. It's worth noting, however, that his comments came immediately following his return from Iraq, where he spoke directly with unit commanders on the field (the second time he's done that). He's the chairman of the foreign relations committee, which is why he was there.

[atinymonkey]

Just two minor points

 

We have not forgotten how incapable the United Nations is at putting its money where its mouth is, and we're sick to death of enforcing its worthless mandates, paying for its humanitarian ineptitudes, and just generally doing its dirty work for it.

I'd just like to take this time to offer my personal thanks to America for it's continuing support in Bosnia.

 

I'd also like to thank America for it's tireless efforts preventing Aids, and caring for sufferers globally.

 

There are so many other areas that the US is always involved in, prevention of child labor, helping developing country's economy's, being ever present at natural disasters with relief, protecting human rights, working for peace.

 

No. Wait. Hang on a second......... That's not America I'm thinking of, it's the UN. Why, it's almost as if declaring war is not the UNs main task. It almost seems to encourage sort of non war state.

 

I think any organisation that is ever present, even when there are no votes to garner and no CNN, continually helping those people in dire need should not be accused of lethargy. We can all declare war, but there has to be an opposite faction fighting for peace and helping the survivors. We either respect that, or we are all dammed to hell.

 

It needs to stop. No country on Earth (even China) pays TEN PERCENT of what we pay for defense alone.

Actually, the UK defense budget is about 10% of the US (£30.9 billion and $417.4 billion respectively). And that's not including the British Commonwealth troops. I'm somewhat doubtful that China has a smaller budget than the UK, even if they say it's tiny.

 

Now, I'm off to have a baked potato. Which may be a little off topic, but it's true.

[Pangloss]

(shrug) Close enough on the numbers. You spend what we ought to be spending, and if we spent that amount you wouldn't have your victory in Bosnia.

 

As for your examples, no, that was the US (and others, such as the UK), not the "UN". They're made up of member countries, remember? They just put a nice blue-and-white face on our money (yours and mine) and our troops (yours and mine).

 

And you're welcome. I'm glad we were able to help. I'm willing to continue to do so. But not if the thankless blowhards of the world continue to (a) berate us for doing what we all agreed to do, and (b) criticize us for spending what we all agreed to spend (and not a bazillion more just because some blowhard wants to stand on a soapbox and pick on an easy target). We'll spend what we spend, we'll put forth the military effort that we're able to put forth, they'll damn well thank us for it, we'll thank others for their efforts, and that'll be the end of it.

 

That's how it should be in polite, egalitarian society. Unlike today.

[revprez]

3) There is a valid concern that there will be a long-term negative impact on enlistment, even after we're done in Iraq.

 

No, there isn't. In fact, the only contribution present operations have had on personnel trends is they've attracted general attention to a slew of problems the US Army has faced since almost immediately after the AVF came into existence. Particularly, we're dealing with a trendline that began in the early 1990s and interestingly enough the Army's not in terribly dissimilar shape than it was seven years ago.

 

1. The enlistment age population is declining.

2. All services have to compete with

3. Guard and Reserve deployments have increased over thirty times between 1991 and 2000 thanks to the total force policy.

 

What Iraq has done is significantly increase the pace of active force deployment overseas, although that's not reported in the news simply because the sexy "what about my job" issues don't apply and consequently we don't see a threat to US Army active force end strength.

 

I think this is a serious and important concern, and it should be telling us something about our internal feelings about our own foreign policy.

 

Or the feelings of American journalists. Aside from Rock the Vote, what real grassroots anti-draft movement is there? Put in context, racial profiling was a more important national issue. You can chalk this one up to a number of (failed) Democratic attempts to set the agenda on security matters.

 

We are tired of being "Team America, World Police". We have not forgotten that George Bush ran, in part, on a platform of NON-intervention in world affairs.

 

Except he didn't. I challenge anyone to produce a single piece of evidence that the President campaigned on isolationism, or that the GOP that overwhelming passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 and overwhelmingly supported Operation Desert Fox that same year suddenly went limp when it came to getting behind a muscular foreign policy two years later.

 

No country on Earth (even China) pays TEN PERCENT of what we pay for defense alone. In fact, I don't think there's another country on the planet that has a total budget equal to our defense budget.

 

Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, and France, all have budgets in the trillion dollar range and defense expenditures that figure about around a tenth or more of US outlays in 2004 (minus the supplementals). What's really interesting is that we only outspend these governments by about $800 billion.

 

It's worth noting, however, that his comments came immediately following his return from Iraq, where he spoke directly with unit commanders on the field (the second time he's done that). He's the chairman of the foreign relations committee, which is why he was there.

 

It's also worth noting that we have no evidence that he's accurately reflected what any of those presumably field grade commanders--all anonymous--said, or if he has whether their views reflect those of their peers. On the other hand, we have tons and tons of on the record testimony from battalion to division level as well as countless retired officers who all agree a draft is no solution to any personnel problem.

 

Rev Prez

[revprez]

No. Wait. Hang on a second......... That's not America I'm thinking of, it's the UN.

 

Nope, you were right the first time. It's the US you're talking about. We're on the forefront of spending for AIDS relief in Africa, we are the backbone of the Bosnia mission, we're globe's first responders in the event natural disaster and let's face it--the US State department has its fingers on nearly every interstate dispute erupting around the world.

 

The UN is nothing more than its member states and office space, and the most mobile, richest, and powerful member is the United States.

 

I think any organisation that is ever present, even when there are no votes to garner and no CNN, continually helping those people in dire need should not be accused of lethargy.

 

Why not? The UN isn't on the forefront of most of those things. NGOs and member states are. The question is whether the UN is useful in its key mission, which is organizing NGOs and states to do some supposedly good work.

 

Rev Prez

[-Demosthenes-]

Ophi's right, the Dems have been using the spectre of the draft as a scare tactic to try to galvanize opposition to the war. It's not realistic, imho.

It is a pitty that so much misinformation is floating around becuase of this, it makes it harder to find out what's really going on. The military is nothing like it was in the '60's, I highly doubt any kind of draft in the near future.

On that regard I fear you may be wrong' date=' I can see the yanks being in

Iraq for a while yet.[/quote']

People seem to forget that we have soldiers all over the place, invasion aside, opposing the idea of having peace keeping soldiers in Iraq is opposing what most U.S. soldiers do, while I do not claim that this is the wrong way to think, it remains a fact.

...(I don't see this war being in the long term interests of the US.)

No matter what the reasoning behind the invasion it is benificial to have another friendly oil rich country. Whether this is a side effect or a main benifit of the invasion is still under debate.

As for your examples, no, that was the US (and others, such as the UK), not the "UN".

And we shouldn't forget who gives the most funding to the UN.

[Pangloss]

No' date=' there isn't. In fact, the only contribution present operations have had on personnel trends is they've attracted general attention to a slew of problems the US Army has faced since almost immediately after the AVF came into existence. Particularly, we're dealing with a trendline that began in the early 1990s and interestingly enough the Army's not in terribly dissimilar shape than it was seven years ago.

 

1. The enlistment age population is declining.

2. All services have to compete with

3. Guard and Reserve deployments have increased over thirty times between 1991 and 2000 thanks to the total force policy.

 

What Iraq has done is significantly increase the pace of active force deployment overseas, although that's not reported in the news simply because the sexy "what about my job" issues don't apply and consequently we don't see a threat to US Army active force end strength.

[/quote']

 

These are interesting points which I was not aware of. Thanks for the info.

 

 

 

Except he didn't. I challenge anyone to produce a single piece of evidence that the President campaigned on isolationism, or that the GOP that overwhelming passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 and overwhelmingly supported Operation Desert Fox that same year suddenly went limp when it came to getting behind a muscular foreign policy two years later.

 

Perhaps an exaggeration on my part. I don't think he campaigned on isolationism either. I'm referring to his well-known position opposing "nation building". I've made my meaning more clear in the subsequent post in response to tiny.

 

 

Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, and France, all have budgets in the trillion dollar range and defense expenditures that figure about around a tenth or more of US outlays in 2004 (minus the supplementals). What's really interesting is that we only outspend these governments by about $800 billion.

 

That's fine, I'll take your word for it. You're right, that is interesting, given the general population ratios. It's also interesting that, for example, the UK spends around a tenth what we spend on defense.

 

I mis-spoke earlier. China spends, according to the source below, around $67 billion. Versus our number, which is rapidly approaching $500 billion. So my 10% memory guesstimate was a little off.

 

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#Military

 

 

It's also worth noting that we have no evidence that he's accurately reflected what any of those presumably field grade commanders--all anonymous--said, or if he has whether their views reflect those of their peers. On the other hand, we have tons and tons of on the record testimony from battalion to division level as well as countless retired officers who all agree a draft is no solution to any personnel problem.

 

(Talking about Biden's comments re Iraq) To clarify, Biden didn't say *squat* about military commanders recommending a draft. Zippo. Zilch. Nada. And just before he came on the air, ABC News ran a piece featuring at least two (as I dimly recall) high level Pentagon officials saying that a draft would be a bad idea.

 

Yah, like I said, Biden is a partisan. He has to be taken in context. I do consider him to be one of the more relatively sane Democrats in the Senate.

[revprez]

Perhaps an exaggeration on my part. I don't think he campaigned on isolationism either. I'm referring to his well-known position opposing "nation building". I've made my meaning more clear in the subsequent post in response to tiny.

 

We know the President's position as it pertains to a select class of cases that includes Bosnia and Kosovo--in short, we know he believes the US should take a supporting role in peace operations where vital strategic interests aren't at stake. He's followed through on that worldview; deployments outside of threat areas have remained stable or declined since he's been in office--a reversal of the trend under Clinton. Part of the reason is that eight and a half months after he took office we were remobilizing most of the force to deploy to the Near East.

 

That's fine, I'll take your word for it. You're right, that is interesting, given the general population ratios. It's also interesting that, for example, the UK spends around a tenth what we spend on defense.

 

Its interesting in that it is the single biggest reason why we aren't expecting a larger international commitment to not only Iraq, but Afghanistan. Not only do the Europeans (and for that matter, the ASEAN nations) spend the bare minimum on defense, but they lack capability in the key area of strategic lift. They simply can't deploy all that much force. France aspired to achieve a 50,000 troop deployment capacity by this year, and Britain committed a fourth of its entire force to Iraq and Afghanistan operations in 2003. None of these countries has the means to field warfighters in much greater numbers than they're doing now (we're talking maybe a division a piece) for longer than two years. We've come a long way from 1991, and if you want to blame someone for our manpower problems you might as well look at Les Aspin and Bill Clinton. They're the brilliant thinkers who decided that the Bush-Powell Base Force was too stingy and went all the way to 40 percent. Add to that the Army had its lowest rate of new procurement in the 1990s since the end of the Vietnam War, and you've essentially understood why Rumsfeld told that soldier "you go to war with the army you have."

 

I mis-spoke earlier. China spends, according to the source below, around $67 billion. Versus our number, which is rapidly approaching $500 billion. So my 10% memory guesstimate was a little off.

 

China has different strategic objectives from the United States--the key difference being that they only need to project power over a two or three hundred miles of water to achieve their aims.

 

(Talking about Biden's comments re Iraq) To clarify, Biden didn't say *squat* about military commanders recommending a draft. Zippo. Zilch. Nada. And just before he came on the air, ABC News ran a piece featuring at least two (as I dimly recall) high level Pentagon officials saying that a draft would be a bad idea.

 

Then why did you bring it up?

 

Rev Prez

[Pangloss]

Then why did you bring it up?

 

Because I think it's interesting. These guys are slippery characters, and it's interesting that Biden (who, in my view, is one of the tamer ones) tried to imply that the commanders support his suggestion that we may have to reinstitute the draft (which, by the way, he didn't actually claim, or propose, or even support! -- he simply talked about the possibility, which of course is how these old-hand politicians work).

 

Bah. Just thinking about it makes me feel all slimey. Bah.

[Pangloss]

Wups. I made a mistake above and need to clear it up for the record. When I was speaking above I thought we were talking about Biden's 6/5 appearance on This Week, which I sometimes confuse with Meet the Press, because I watch both shows. I just now watched Sunday's Meet the Press on my Tivo and caught Biden's comments there. He does talk about the draft, and says that he thinks we can avoid it but that we have to face the shortfall in troops (a point which is well and interestingly refuted by revprez, see above).

 

Sorry about any confusion, mea culpa, etc etc.