I saw this in the NY TIMES but passed over it, but here it is again:

Guardian UK: Appeal for draft board members revives memories of Vietnam

Hmmm.....

On some blog or other one poster mentioned a perhaps un-thought of possibilty if The Ruling Junta reinstate the draft:

In the Vietnam era, people fled to Canada or pretended they were homosexual to get out of the draft. So, what if Canada closed its borders and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was enforced?

I think the idea of the draft is a non-starter, really. And one question that really needs to be addressed is does the current "professional" army really want a bunch of discontented people who don't want to be there? And considering that The Ruling Junta is slashing benefits, closing base PX's, shuttering base schools and other things that are really pissing off the already enlisted, where does enlarging the military fit in? Having lived on Air Force bases until I was 15, those amenities are really important because you're often in the middle of nowhere.

I would love it if they reinstated the draft with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" still in place - how much $$ could we all make coaching straight guys on how to seem gay so they could get out of the military?

Whether the Army wants draftees or not may hinge on their success in attracting enough volunteers and National Guardspeople to serve in Iraq AND W's ability to gain foreign troop deployment.

One thing a draft would do would be to rouse to reality a number of people of draft age who know they don't have to serve and can afford to abstract and dismiss the tragedies that are occurring over in Iraq.

Isn't W's handsome young nephew of draft age? I say make him draftee number one and cut out the possibility of ANY deferments after 4-5 years of college. Let's see how many of the armchair generals and hyperpatriots would find an excuse not to serve.

. . . at least not until after the election. It will be after November 2004 when the $h!t really starts to hit the fan. With the takeover of Iraq degenerating into a qWagmire from which extrication grows more difficult by the day, it's unlikely that the military can meet its current personnel needs beyond early next year. Enlistments & re-enlistments will surely decline with the near certainty of deployment to the Middle East. Yes, a draft would be politically ruinous for W. in an election year, but it's safe to say that this story won't get much play in the American media (all the reports I've seen so far are from Britain).

But after the election, it's a different matter. The Democrats are facing certain defeat in the presidential election & possibly a disaster of historic proportions in the legislative elections. Sure it would take an act of Congress to revive conscription--but that's not much assurance, because if the president requests it, the next Congress will surely grant it, with even more Republicans in its ranks & the surviving Democrats humbled & bowed. This much we know: U.S. policy in the Middle East is completely beholden to AIPAC & Ariel Sharon, & this administration's ambitions go far beyond Iraq, with Syria & Iran on the short list for attack & regime change. We're remaking the Middle East, & this is going to require alot of soldiers.

[ November 05, 2003, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: BillyBones ]

Do you have access to a crystal ball that the rest of us don't? Bush's poll numbers are down and if the situation in I-rack drags on for another year with no end in sight and the economy is still soft and/or bad, he's in real trouble. Maybe I'm letting my complete loathing of The Ruling Junta cloud my view, but to me, Bush is in no way a lock in 2004.

Syria and Iran? Are you serious? That may be what the PNAC wankers dream of, but where is the support for those (mis)adventures going to come from? There's simply no way that the US would be able to afford that in terms of $$$ and manpower, even if the draft was reinstated. Blair is in deep doo-doo in England and might night survive another year in office; there's no way that England can be counted on. I don't see how, in light of BushCo. insulting any and all doubters to the Iraq invasion plans, including but not limited to the UN and "Old Europe", how they can get anyone apart from Lithuania and those sort of non-players to sign on.

That is the best reason I can think of for fighting like crazy to make sure that this lot don't get re-elected, to stop the concept of Perpetual War That Allows Them To Do What They Want dead in its tracks.

[ November 05, 2003, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

I'm a moderate Republican but I wouldn't make such sweeping assumptions. Overconfidence is foolhardy and anything can happen in an year.

[ November 05, 2003, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: copman ]

Apologies for getting off topic, but to answer--no crystal ball, or any other special powers. It's just the general conclusion that I've reached. The simple reason: the Democrats will be divided on the war, divided among themselves & divided from much of the electorate whose interests they purport to represent. The big difference between '92 & '04 is that back then, by the time the campaign started, the Gulf War was over & forgotten. This time the war will be front & center, & for the Republicans it is the perfect wedge issue.

Here is the Democrats' dilemma. The liberal left, myself included, opposed this war from the beginning, contending that a quick victory would be followed by the peace from hell, that it would turn into a costly qWagmire, that it would be destabilizing to the region, that it would increase not decrease the threat of terrorism, that Saddam was already contained, that intelligence claims were exaggerated or outright fabricated, & that the war was ultimately not necessary & certainly not a last resort. We have basically been proved right, and we aren't in any mood to support a pro-war Democrat. So the candidates now have to be, or appear to be, against the war to have any chance of winning the nomination.

But in the process, the Democrats are seriously alienating themselves from many of the voters they will need. Most working-class Americans, white or black, either have family members in the military or know someone in the military, & to them, "supporting the troops" means supporting the mission. To say that this war was a fraud based on lies & deceit, however true, is tantamount to saying that the troops are sacrificing & dying in vain. That isn't a winning strategy, & what's more, it's basically trying to convince a majority of Americans that they've been duped--surely an uphill fight. And we can be assured that the right-wing media will take the opportunity to drive the wedge deeper by quoting out of context & attacking the patriotism of any Democrat who dares to speak out.

Even as things continue to get worse in Iraq, W.'s message will be clear & concise: stay the course. The Democrats' message: well, some of us were kind of against it but we were too afraid to vote against it, but then when things started going badly & W.'s poll numbers started tumbling we were more against it but now that our troops are there we can't just leave but we've got to get more international support so we have to kiss & make up with France & Germany & we're concerned about how much this is costing so any funds we provide for reconstruction should be as loans not grants & also we should repeal the tax cuts to pay for it.

Does anyone think a Democrat can get elected like this? Maybe the right one can, but things are going to have to get ALOT worse in Iraq for that to happen.

[ November 06, 2003, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: BillyBones ]

What you write is true in a lot of respects, but I think you over-estimate the position of strength that the Bushites are operating from. I've seen it happen in election after election at every level: people often don't FOR a candidate, they vote AGAINST someone. The Democratic nominee and the Veep choice (Dean/Clark would be my ideal) have to come out swinging and take their lumps about their craven capitulation in voting for the war and the $87 billion money pit. Hammer the Bushites on their outright lies (too many to list). Negate the "We need to support our boys!!" feeling by hammering home the point that the Ruling Junta is cutting benefits, that the False Leader refuses to attend memorial services for dead soldiers etc. I tried to find it, but I read a good, credible article from the Army Times--that bastion of liberalism, you know--about how angry people in the service are about how they're being treated now.

This administration is vulnerable in many areas and the Democrats have to be agressive and put them on the defensive. It's going to be the nastiest election I've ever experienced, but bring it on.

There is a very simple argument that can be made by the Democrats that would appeal to both the anti-war and pro-military groups in this country, and I believe Dean has made it - namely that he was against the war, it is fought on fradulent grounds, but now that we are there, we have a job to do and have to finish it right.

Getting back on topic, or at least closer - this does bring up an issue that is likely to be in play by next November - how do we keep the army at necessary strength using volunteers if many of the volunteers are stepping back? I read somewhere (sorry, can't remember where) that informal polls show that 50% of reservists are just not going to re-up when their duty is over. Given our reliance on them, how will the US manage without a draft?

IT's going to be very tough.

1) Britain is trying to reduce its troop strength. Australia has already done so.

2) Poland had to recruit troops from Ukraine and other neighboring nations to fill out its ranks. Poland and Spain, two key members of the "Coalition of the Willing," simply cannot provide the humanpower need to fill the necessary number of slots. Moreover, Spain's military is a joke.

3) None of our allies with large standing armies--India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Russia--are willing to send troops to Iraq...YET. Nor are our richest allies with large specialized peace-keeping divisions--Germany, France, Canada--willing to send troops...YET. And NONE of our Middle Eastern allies--Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, etc.--are going to dare send troops anytime soon.

4) Turkey has agreed to send troops, but this is causing an uproar in Iraq, not only among the Kurds but among Sunnis and Shi'as who are (rightly) worried about possible territorial claims Turkey might make. So this is a real problem.

5) Israel, which has one of the best militaries in the world, will not under any circumstances station troops in Iraq, though they could probably assist in solving many of the problems the US is facing (such as rooting out the former members of Saddam's regime) if they were working in conjunction with the British and US. So the best army in the region cannot--at least publicly--participate.

If 50%--or even 30%--of the Guardsmen don't sign up, and volunteer recruiting continues to lag (as is occurring now), I'm not really sure what the US is going to do. But W is not going to allow a draft to sink his re-election plans, and he just may try to ride things out till Nov. 2004, and pray that conditions improve. The military is already talking about cutting troop strength even as it has admitted that earlier projections of needed troops (up to 200,000) would probably resolve many of the issues that are aiding the resistance, such as unguarded caches of weapons and porous borders with Iran and Syria.

I personally am worried about the Democrats' chances, based on what I've witnessed in these debates. I've watched about 3 of them, and more than once I've seen Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, and Edwards, who I consider to be the leading contenders, simply prove incapable of responding to basic questions about the war, about the economy, about jobs, about our future, in the kinds of simple and convincing language that W--though he mangles it--is able to put forward on a daily basis. What truly worries me is that people in some of the swing states that the Democrat MUST win may decide that although they're not happy with W's performance overall, he's the best choice in terms of national security and this war, and that those two issues should trump everything.

What's aiding W in appearing as the best option is

--the lack of a coherent Democratic message on the war and how to
--the Democrats' constantly operating in reactive rather than pro-active mode on the situation in Iraq;
--the Democrats' inability to present a coherent message on the economy and taxes;
--the Democrats' failure to pursue zealously the inconsistencies in W's actions, which allows them to fade away as opposed to what we saw with Clinton;
-- Congress's utter failure to produce clear findings on 9/11 and W and Co's inept behavior leading up to the tragedy, allowing him to shape the narrative of what occurred;
--Congress's failure to present to the American people a clear account of what shenanigans the White House was engaged in during the buildup to the Iraq War (cf. Sean Hannity's and the GOP's hysterical response to a Democratic Intel Committee staffer's memo);
--W's extraordinary fundraising, which has received almost zero public criticism from any quarter, even though we had to hear a steady diet of criticism of Clinton and Gore's fundraising, etc.

Again and again, W has skirted any lasting (and NECESSARY) criticism, and it's as if the Democrats simply cannot bear to be hold him to the fire. Moreover, the media--liberal, right-wing, what have you--also refuse to pursue any thorough investigation of anything W or the GOP-led Congress is doing. It doesn't help either to have a right-leaning posterboy from Georgia like Zell Miller come out and say that he'd vote for W; I mean, what's the point? I don't think any Democrat--not even pseud-Republican Joe Lieberman--except himself would please him! I once thought Wesley Clark had what it took, but he's starting to come off as a real lightweight. Unless they can get things together, we're in for a mess in 2004.

BTW, the Democrats look to lose three Southern Senate seats. In North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, I cannot see them winning any of these, even if they found the most popular Democrat in each state. The GOP, despite its anti-working-class policies, has a stranglehold on working-class white male voters, and they've already got the white upper classes in the South, so it's going to be tough to win in any of these states. Only Florida is a possibility. The Democrats very well MAY pick up seats in other states, like Illinois, but it's going to be tough. The only hope is that--and people just don't seem to state this enough--if the Democrats can field a ticket that can win ALL the states Gore won--which is still a possibility, since many on the coasts have trended even further Democratic--and pick up one more likely one, like Arkansas or New Hampshire, we'd at least have a Democratic president and a GOP congress, which is actually a workable situation--as Clinton showed. And most of the Democrats who are likely to get the nomination appear to be able to keep their pants zipped up--for four years or more.

Set the Wayback Machine on June.

\\"Army Times\\" - Nothing but lip service

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARM...PER-1954515.php



[ November 06, 2003, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

That'd be a hollow gesture. If he followed in his uncle's (and Dan "Full Dinner Jacket" Quayle's) footsteps, he'd "enlist" and "serve" in some sinecure a long way from where draftees would get sent ... and a long way from anything resembling the conditions currently existing in "Eye-Rack" .

[ November 07, 2003, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: danimal ]

If the draft were to be reinstated anyone have any idea what the parameters are for enlistees?

commie pinkos from TX are number 1

then commie pinkos from CA.

The chickenhawk wuss boys like PhillyFan must be getting nervous.

Hey PF, my partner and I have a place in Canada if you'd like to hide out there for awhile. But you have to keep the place clean and pick up your empty Moulson bottles.

No, the hawks never go to war ... that would mean there might be fewer of them. Not to worry, PhillyFan, et al., you're good.

Here's my question: Were Mr. Bush to reinstitute the draft boards AND they lifted the gay ban across the board, would you consider the policy beneficial? Now, don't get lost in whether the war is just or not or whether or not it would happen. I want to know how everyone would react if the government repealed DADT permanently to reinstate the draft.

P.S. And what the hell is a commie pinko?! It sounds like a fashion trend for gay children.

I'd need you to hire someone to pick up after me, bring me beer, and american tv (not the canada crap), BostonGirl might bet mad, but i dont think GJ is too busy.... Hope it's close to Toronto, so i'd need a driver to take me into town....

Credit card would be a must so as to keep the place stocked with beer....

I"m really thinking about this offer tho Raze....

Oh, fine. You take up HIS offer to go to Canada, but do nothing to send me to England. You men are all alike!

Why do you hate Canada?

Good one! I like it.

Why does he need to go to Canada? He's doing a damn good job of hiding out behind his keyboard in Arizona.

Fantomas, did it ever occur to you that the draft board situation occurs on schedule every twenty years? 1980 saw the last one, and now we're seeing the next scheduled one. The next one after this is scheduled to occur in 2020. If a Republican is in office then, will you continue to harp on it, or will you be so expediently silent if a Democrat is in office then?

The terms of members of the local draft boards expire on a regular basis, and new recruits are instituted every 20 years after the most recent census count. This all happens regardless of the political or military situation.

What? And have you hit on Prince Charles? Never.

You know, i think they are still looking for some of those "human shields" over there in Iraq still... i'll buy you a ticket for that.

I personally hope the draft is reinstituted, maybe then some of the chickenhawks who are so pro-war as long as someone else is doing the fighting would not be so gung ho to go to war over a pack of lies.

The terrorist thank you for your support and the loss of your spine. Thanks!

More like vice versa. As soon as you get off the bus at the London Port Authority bus terminal, there he is.

Can't those liberals at the Army Times ever shut up?

An act of ‘betrayal'

Hey, thanks for dying. I love the tax deduction on my Porsche SUV.

Thanks, Mr. Linksmeister, for finding that article. Damn search function!

The Democrats on the trail are making this stuff an issue.

And they can't say enough times "Bush is an AWOL chickenhawk". Even if they say it 80 billion times.

[ November 10, 2003, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

YOU. ARE. MISSING. THE. POINT. It's not that the draft boards' membership is being reconstituted, but the problems in Iraq and the need for attracting enough troops, coupled with calls from members of Congress for a reinstitution of the draft/conscription, means that these new members may be playing a role similar to the ones played during the time my father was in high school and college.

"Harp on"--look, read my comments on this thread alone. I'm not making it a GOP issue--it's an issue for W and his administration. And for whatever Democrat follows.

Okay, MIB, here you go--from a right-winger, a skeptical look at troop deployment and the possible reinstitution of the draft.

Published in The Weekly Standard. Is that non-liberal enough for you?

The Weekly Standard: Underwhelming Force