Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Countrydave55

Back To The Draft

Recommended Posts

Now that Bush has been re-elected the military are talking about recruitment short falls and the need "to discuss a draft". Discuss a draft

 

 

Lots of Republicans made the talking heads news programs over the weekend to say "there will not be a draft". I think that is great but my question is if you need more troops as the generals say, we are loosing troops to attacks and retirement, recruitment is less than needed to sustain current troop levels then how does the military maintain troop strength. Bush says that he opposed to cloning. What are the options?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't worry about it, there won't be a draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/showArticl...icleId=55800821

 

 

 

I guess they will just need to be creative as there will be no draft.

 

Maybe they can change entry requirements to allow people in that would not otherwise have made it.

 

I would be happy to go. In fact if I can get the money to pay for my boards I would sign up as soon as I am qualified. I am too old to get in without the MD, and the MD is only good if I meet the license requirements (USMLE).

 

If I were younger I would go regardless of the USMLE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

require all politicians and wannabe politicos a min 5 years national (active) service before being eligible to run ( with daddies money) .....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As of 24 months ago the military would accept and a physician if they were licensed in any state in the US and were 49 years 11 months old at the time of enlistment. So I would say go for it.

 

As for "there won't be a draft" that is what the republicans keep saying but of course that doesn't answer the question. The Reserves have already acknowledged that increasing the sign up bonus by 300% did not significantly improve the number of recruits.

 

How much do you have to pay somebody to go into a war zone where you can't tell friend from foe and the sec of Defense thinks you are a wimp for asking for armor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

require all politicians and wannabe politicos a min 5 years national (active) service before being eligible to run ( with daddies money) .....?

Why? It does not help them qualify as a politician and it wouldn't garner many results at all. Maybe a few hundred or so?

 

Do you really want a military based government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/showArticl...icleId=55800821

 

 

 

I guess they will just need to be creative as there will be no draft.

 

Maybe they can change entry requirements to allow people in that would not otherwise have made it.

 

I would be happy to go. In fact if I can get the money to pay for my boards I would sign up as soon as I am qualified. I am too old to get in without the MD, and the MD is only good if I meet the license requirements (USMLE).

 

If I were younger I would go regardless of the USMLE.

Too old?

 

They are taking 70 year olds. :help:

 

Not to worry gang, they are extending all tours of duty, and sending troops back who have already done a tour or two.

 

When there is no one left to send back, we can recruit the boy scouts. :mrsgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As of 24 months ago the military would accept and a physician if they were licensed in any state in the US and were 49 years 11 months old at the time of enlistment. So I would say go for it.

 

As for "there won't be a draft" that is what the republicans keep saying but of course that doesn't answer the question. The Reserves have already acknowledged that increasing the sign up bonus by 300% did not significantly improve the number of recruits.

 

How much do you have to pay somebody to go into a war zone where you can't tell friend from foe and the sec of Defense thinks you are a wimp for asking for armor?

Yes I know, I checked into it. The key word there is licensed. In order to be licensed you have to pass the USMLE. In order to get through the series of exams it will cost me several thousand dollars. I am trying very hard, believe me.

 

 

You say go for it, and I will, I already decided. But in order to go for it I need 6-7 grand and I have enough trouble just having enough money to eat. In fact the only reason I have a cat is because my girlfriend is buying food and litter for it, I can't afford it.

 

I have already spoken to the Navy and will likely go in as a GMO (general medical officer) if I can take my exams. As a GMO I will get a straight officers salary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a big problem that is getting closer every day.

 

For the politicians, especially Republicans, voting for a draft is seen as possible suicide. They will do anything to avoid it.

 

If recruitment stays in decline, we will be forced to confront not just the troop strength (supply) side of the equation, but to confront demand, too. And maybe then our troops could come home. But, as things are and probably will be, we would just have to abandon Iraq and bug out.

 

Remember the advice most frequently given in the last year of the Viet Nam War? Just declare victory and go home. Would Bush dare do this?

Edited by rhizome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our best hope is to wait until after the Iraq elections and hope they demand that we clear off. That 's unlikely though. Assuming that the Shias win a large majority they will want us to help out with an impending civil war.

That's if the elections go ahead at all. If they don't we will be obliged to stay and help out with an impending civil war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice going Moon. Way to use "quotes" to make your point. Take the words you want and make them say what you want. Read the whole article.

 

The last time I checked it was the Dems who wanted the draft. Part of their campaign up to the election I guess....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice going Moon. Way to use "quotes" to make your point. Take the words you want and make them say what you want. Read the whole article.

Yeah, I read it, d. I read everything going about the Father of the New Iraq. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the democrats proposed a draft because they are able to see reality and can see that more troop needs plus fewer troops available leaves few options other than the draft.

 

As for the republicans supporting a draft. I agree that they cannot support a draft. They campaigned on the claim that the war was going well and more troops were not needed. They can hardly go "Oops my bad".

 

On the other hand they have spent the last 30 years claiming Democrats can't stand up and will run from a fight. Can they now say "democracy is restored" and leave? I know Nixon did it in Vietnam but will people fall for that trick again? Unlike Vietnam where leaving was embarrassing leaving a mess that we created in Iraq will be deadly.

 

Speaking of leaving I thought the Bush doctrine was to support a secular democracy in the middle east. Mostly Iranian backed theologians are running for office. How does that move the middle east toward a secular democracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that Bush has been re-elected the military are talking about recruitment short falls and the need "to discuss a draft". Discuss a draft

 

 

Lots of Republicans made the talking heads news programs over the weekend to say "there will not be a draft". I think that is great but my question is if you need more troops as the generals say, we are loosing troops to attacks and retirement, recruitment is less than needed to sustain current troop levels then how does the military maintain troop strength. Bush says that he opposed to cloning. What are the options?

You ask what the otions are and then refuse to hear any options.

 

The premise is there will be no draft. Don't propose a premise and then change it.

 

There are inumerable other options. Do you believe that the only strength is in numbers?

 

Total military personnel on September 30, 2003, was 1,434,377. There are about 250,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen deployed in support of combat, peacekeeping, and deterrence operations. Of the 35 combat brigades and Armored Cavalry Regiments in the US Army's active component, some 16 are currently deployed. So only about 17% of the US military personnel are deployed on foreign soil, and that is spread over 135 countries.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops...deployments.htm

 

You want to know why there is so much noise about the number of troops and talk about a draft? ONE reason and one reason only. Media hype.

 

 

 

Here are your options:

1) delay discharges and retirements, extend tours

2) redeploy non combat troops as combat troops, all military personnel are trained to fight. There are MANY troops that could be made available that way

3) redeploy women into combat

4) recall recently discharged troops

5) hire private security forces for the scut work

 

 

Some of those are already being used and there are more options than that anyway.

 

 

 

 

The aim is to train Iraqi forces to take over. The Iraqis are currently failing in their training so that will need to be remedied. The low grade smart alec remark made about the command structure demonstrates a lack of serious concern for this subject.

 

The Iraqis are lacking in effective leadership including civic, military, and religious. It is extremely important that this is addressed and that they achieve an effective command structure so they can take over their own internal security.

 

In the mean time, regarding the subject of the draft, let's not fall so much for media hype and political games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Speaking of leaving I thought the Bush doctrine was to support a secular democracy in the middle east. Mostly Iranian backed theologians are running for office. How does that move the middle east toward a secular democracy?

I answer with a question: How does it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The low grade smart alec remark made about the command structure demonstrates a lack of serious concern for this subject." This is uncalled for. You may disagree with the content but I caution you not to attack the writer. This is a violation of the forum rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a very safe bet that there will not be a draft. It would be political suicide. The largest unknown at this point is the elections. The insurgents are taking their best shots at destabilizing the election process.

 

No matter how hard the insurgents try, we (the US) has no choice but to hold the elections and back the results. Also, independent of any realities, we ought to declare victory and leave triumphant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What?

 

Are you serious?

 

So you are going to take a serious remark about and try to turn it into a violation?

 

Caution me all you want, I am right. It was no insult to any author, heck I don't even know who made the remark, shall I go back and look? Something about Bush resigning I think it was.

 

I am sorry but it is getting a bit tiresom being accused of such an insult because the reader does not understand the comment. It was the post that I commented on that contained malicious intent, not my own.

 

 

It is NOT a matter of disagreement with the content AT ALL. It is a disagreement with the tone and clear malicious intent of the comment. If you want to twist it into such a thing then you aren't interested in communicating honestly on the subject at hand.

 

 

I repeat so it is clear. I did not in any way attack anybody, that is clear and obvious. Any accusation that I have is unwarranted and aggressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chopdoc writes "You ask what the otions are and then refuse to hear any options. "

 

I looked over the posts to this thread (again) and I don't see any alternatives proposed. The responses are characterized as 'there will be no draft' and 'incentives will be increased'. Surely you recognize that 'there will be no draft' is not an answer. As for 'incentives will be increased' I asked which and how much. Tripling sign up bonuses has not been effective.

 

Chopdoc writes "The premise is there will be no draft. Don't propose a premise and then change it." I was not aware that I had done that.

 

Chopdoc writes "There are inumerable other options. Do you believe that the only strength is in numbers?" I do not think that numbers are the solutions to all problems but I do not see that there are alternatives in this situation. If there are please enlighten me.

 

Chopdoc writes "You want to know why there is so much noise about the number of troops and talk about a draft? ONE reason and one reason only. Media hype." Good opinion. So your position is that the generals are in league with the media to create a problem that does not exist?

 

Chopdoc writes " Here are your options:

1) delay discharges and retirements, extend tours

2) redeploy non combat troops as combat troops, all military personnel are trained to fight. There are MANY troops that could be made available that way

3) redeploy women into combat

4) recall recently discharged troops

5) hire private security forces for the scut work

 

 

Some of those are already being used and there are more options than that anyway."

 

Actually I think all of these are presently implemented except to redeploy women to combat. Thank you for posting these suggestions since I do not see any of these proposals in the previous posts.

 

"1) delay discharges and retirements, extend tours" this is called stop loss and is on going.

 

"2) redeploy non combat troops as combat troops, all military personnel are trained to fight. There are MANY troops that could be made available that way " I think this is on going. I believe that naval personnel and Air Force personnel are being transferred to Iraq. I would say that while all military are trained to fight this is bit like saying all physicians are trained to operate. Do you want a general practitioner performing open heart surgery on you? We have already seen how well prepared support troops are for combat. Remember the during the push to Baghdad when a maintenance company made a wrong turn and were ambushed. After the heroic after action reports were released it was discovered that their rifles had jammed and most of the soldiers did not participate in the combat. Besides it turns out that all military (indeed all businesses) require support personnel to maintain equipment, treat and feed the troops, etc. You cannot convert 100% of the military personnel into rifleman and mortar men for an extended period of time.

 

"3) redeploy women into combat" Good suggestion. Will that increase combat troops by 10% , 20% , 30%. I don't know, I am asking.

 

"4) recall recently discharged troops" I think you posted that they were recalling surgeons that have been discharged. The ready reserve is already being tapped.

 

 

"5) hire private security forces for the scut work" I think this is already being done. There are concerns about how much such contract employees can be directed by the military in a combat role and there are liability risks. We know that some of the contractors have made no pretense of following rues of combat. Are such civilian contractors protected by the Geneva convention. Oops I forgot Bush said they aren't. Oh well I guess that is their risk. What does a mercenary cost? Or should I ask what do 100,000 mercenaries cost?

 

"The aim is to train Iraqi forces to take over. The Iraqis are currently failing in their training so that will need to be remedied. " Yes that is the aim but it seems even Bush implies that aim is a fading dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked over the posts to this thread (again) and I don't see any alternatives proposed.

Then you missed one. I made only one suggestion.

 

My statement was regarding your approach to the proposals of others and myself, not just myself.

 

 

Regarding your lengthy discourse on redeploying noncombat troops as combat troops, just where did I say to redeploy them all? You speak as if I would propose such a thing. Why? Is it to be confrontational? Do you really think you need to explain to me that not all can be redeployed? What is the accepted minimal ratio of support personnel to combat troops in a modern army? THAT is the real question.

 

The numbers that could be redeployed are in fact massive. That's why I posted a break down of troop numbers. But you seem to have skipped over the actual numbers.

 

 

I do not know how many women could be redeployed. I have not checked the statistics. If necessary I am certain nearly 100% could be, but that wouldn't be fair.

 

Private security forces are something I am very much against. How much would they cost? Any price is too much. The funny thing is that people will do for money what they say is wrong in principle. If there were a draft (an there won't be) the first people that need to be drafted are all the mercenaries.

 

Yes indeed, most of what I am saying is currently being implemented. Do you think that was by accident or design?

 

 

Bush has not implied it is a fading dream, he has directly cited the failure. Why is it that you don't want to say that it was the President himself who clearly stated it?

 

US forces in Iraq have their own support units. actual infantry soldiers in Iraq are a minority even there. The proper measure of US commitment is units, not personnel. By that measure, the US retains the vast majority of its combat units at home, on rotation or uncommitted.

 

About 35% of the Army and the ARNG are combat units; a little more than the for the Marines, less for the Army Reserve. Figurning about 35%, you get about 480K combat troops, roughly 24 Divisions or 72 Brigades. But that ratio can be altered!

 

How many troops do we need? I question the 10:1 counterinsurgency ratio that has been often quoted by military strategists as it is antiquated, a more optimum figure is 1:5. Numbers don't matter nearly as much as do efficient intel and effective troop usage. There are 150K US and other troops facing about 11K fighters plus about 90K fellow travellers, supporters and kids who'll shoot a magazine or an RPG. Figure 11K plus about 1/3 for the 90K fellow travellers, or 30K, you get about 40K opposing our 150K, not unmanageable at all. The real problem is political and the real root of that problem is the media.

 

So there is one final option that you have not even considered: Remain "shorthanded". Look at the numbers again. If they want to send 100k or 200k or more additional troops they are available. We have forces of almost 1.4 million. More than half a million are in training, procurement and logistics, but that can easily be changed. My uncle was a cook in WWII, he used a rifle a lot more than he used a spoon and was wounded twice. My other uncle was a supply clerk, he was machine gunned in the legs and taken prisoner by the Germans. Another uncle is burried in Holland, he was the only one of the three that was not a support person but all three were in combat primarily. Hmmm, what is the minimal ratio of support personnel to combat troops? And how many troops are actually needed?

Edited by Chopdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Then you missed one. I made only one suggestion." Then I apologize.

 

"Regarding your lengthy discourse on redeploying noncombat troops as combat troops, just where did I say to redeploy them all? You speak as if I would propose such a thing. Why? Is it to be confrontational? Do you really think you need to explain to me that not all can be redeployed? What is the accepted minimal ratio of support personnel to combat troops in a modern army? THAT is the real question." I did not mean to imply that 100% would need to be deployed to combat only that one could not convert 100% to combat troops in anything other than an extreme emergency.

 

"The numbers that could be redeployed are in fact massive. That's why I posted a break down of troop numbers. But you seem to have skipped over the actual numbers." I didn't mean to ignore your numbers but I do not know how many of these people can reasonably be redeployed to a frontline troop position do you? Do you proposed to do this with or without training? Is the plan to be snatched out of your sonar technician job in a submarine and handed a rifle the same day? I am not proposing that I am simply asking how many people and how quickly o you plan to make this transition?

 

"Yes indeed, most of what I am saying is currently being implemented. Do you think that was by accident or design?" I am assuming by design but I don't understand the purpose of the question? Are you suggesting you helped with this plan? Are you suggesting the military leadership is so inept that these things could only occur by accident? Are you suggesting that because these things are occurring (either by design or by accident) are sufficient and the Generals are too ignorant to understand that the issue is adequately addressed? I simply don't understand your point here?

 

"Bush has not implied it is a fading dream, he has directly cited the failure. Why is it that you don't want to say that it was the President himself who clearly stated it?" I did not hear Bush say that this was a failure only that it is not going as well as hoped. If you wish to characterize Bush's statement as an admission of defeat and failure please feel free to. I didn't hear that said and I can't imagine him saying it.

 

"US forces in Iraq have their own support units. actual infantry soldiers in Iraq are a minority even there. The proper measure of US commitment is units, not personnel. By that measure, the US retains the vast majority of its combat units at home, on rotation or uncommitted." So one proposal might be to stop rotating troops out of theater? That may be workable.

 

 

 

"How many troops do we need? I question the 10:1 counterinsurgency ratio that has been often quoted by military strategists as it is antiquated, a more optimum figure is 1:5. Numbers don't matter nearly as much as do efficient intel and effective troop usage." Wow I hope you are right. That would be a huge change We could reduce troop strength in Iraq by 130,000 or so. Oh yea there is that intelligence prerequisite. Well I am sure that will work out like the WMDs did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yes indeed, most of what I am saying is currently being implemented. Do you think that was by accident or design?" I am assuming by design but I don't understand the purpose of the question? Are you suggesting you helped with this plan? Are you suggesting the military leadership is so inept that these things could only occur by accident? Are you suggesting that because these things are occurring (either by design or by accident) are sufficient and the Generals are too ignorant to understand that the issue is adequately addressed? I simply don't understand your point here?

 

 

My point is that the plan is clear and in motion. It isn't any mystery and there isn't anything cryptic about it.

 

I am suggesting nothing about the generals. If they need more troops then we should send more. We can more than double the troops there without going to the extraordinary measures of a draft. Are any of them calling for more than double?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...