Jackson Free Press

On the evening of Oct. 5—after the Red Sox beat the Angels in the first game of the playoffs, and before the evening debate between Vice President Richard Cheney and Sen. John Edwards—the full U.S. House of Representatives met on Capitol Hill and voted, for the first time in the lifetime of most of today's college students, on legislation to reinstate a military draft.

The Universal National Service Act (HR 163), the bill introduced by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., would have mandated "every able citizen and resident of the United States between the ages of 18 and 26, both men and women, to perform a two-year period of national service as a member of an active or reserve component of the armed forces or as a civilian in the national defense system."

Unlike the draft during Vietnam, college students would not be able to use education as a vehicle to dodge conscription. The bill was defeated almost unanimously (402-2), but Rangel admits that it had no chance of passing when he introduced the bill in January 2003, a month before the Iraq War began. He introduced the bill in an effort to inject questions about race and class into the Iraq debate at the time. He, himself, voted against it last week.

U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-2nd District, initially supported the draft measure introduced by Rangel, telling the JFP in September: "I have signed on to the bill by Rep. Charlie Rangel [with the goal of] helping with the manpower shortage." He said a draft would give "every able-bodied male in America" an opportunity to serve his country. "What could be better than that?" he asked.

Thompson voted against the measure last week as well.

A year and a half after the bill's introduction, the troop-thirsty situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are suggesting that the need for a draft could be closer than anyone thought. The bill, which had lain dormant since its introduction, was rushed to the floor by Republicans just a month prior to a highly charged election for a vote that many congressman said was specifically designed to quash rumors on college campuses and on the Internet. In particular, a widely circulated e-mail with the subject line: "Bush to Reinstate Military Draft On June 15, 2005" suggests a partisan slant. The first line ends "...if Bush is re-elected."

"There is no possibility of a draft—not under President George Bush there won't be," Sen. Thad Cochran said in a phone interview. "There is no chance, it is not necessary, it won't be needed."

However, findings of National Annenberg Election Survey this week indicate that 51 percent of adults age 18-29 believe Bush wants to reinstate the draft, while only 8 percent said they believe Kerry supports bringing back the draft.

Persistent Speculation

Common sense tells us that just because Congress isn't voting for a general draft now doesn't mean that both Republicans and Democrats won't vote for it if and when their war policies lead them to a situation where they cannot figure out another way to get enough soldiers with specific skills. Many indicators point to a possible reinstatement of the draft—if nothing else, based on dwindling troop numbers, increasing threats around the world and a worsening situation in Iraq.

In fact, even though the bill was voted down resoundingly, there was still quite a dialogue on the topic during the second presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis last Friday.

President Bush said in that debate that he'd heard "rumors on the Internets" (yes, he said Internets) about the reinstatement of the draft. The president said: "Now, forget all this talk about a draft. We're not going to have a draft so long as I am the president."

Sen. John Kerry's rebuttal began with a statement saying that he does not support a draft, either, but he said the current president's policies have led us to an over-extended military. Kerry said: "Our Guard and Reserves have been turned into almost active duty. You've got people doing two and three rotations. You've got Stop Loss policies, so people can't get out when they were supposed to. You've got a 'back-door draft' right now. And a lot of our military are underpaid. These are families that get hurt. It hurts the middle class. It hurts communities, because these are our first responders. They're called up, and they're over there, not over here."

Kerry ended his minute and a half saying, "We're going to build alliances. We're not going to go unilaterally. We're not going to go alone like this president did."

The exchange continued with President Bush suddenly interrupting moderator Charlie Gibson in order to defend his stance further. Bush broke in, declaring, "Let me just—I've got to answer this." Gibson followed up, "Exactly. And with Reservists being held on duty..." until being cut off by the president yet again. Bush then said, "Let me answer what he just said, about around the world." He began yelling when he said, "You tell Tony Blair we're going alone!" repetitively.

But with about 140,000 troops in constant rotation overseas and what seems like more troops pouring out of American ports everyday, the anecdotal evidence is gloomy. This question looms over many young Americans who are heading to the polls in November—perhaps in record numbers. The government's last resort is lengthening the troops' terms overseas to fulfill the requirements needed for stability in the Middle East, which antagonizes the whole section of American families with members in the Reserves.

Prior to the presidential debates, Sen. Cochran told the JFP: "Kerry is campaigning for president and is trying to get votes. He has no evidence whatsoever that there will be a draft needed for this war in Iraq or any other reason."

But with the possibility of North Korea, Iran and Syria all sitting on the White House's hit list, is Cochran's assessment ironclad?

'Cover Your Own Ass'

When David Barringer joined the Marine Corp Reserves in May 2000, he knew that he might have to leave Gulfport to fight overseas. In an interview, he repeated an unofficial slogan for the Marine Corp: "Always Here, Last Ones to Know, First Ones to Go."

At 26 years old, Barringer recalls when he was deployed to Iraq. In January 2003, he was in California for two weeks before he left for the Middle East and Camp Matilda—which at the time was "tent city" because as far as you could see there were just tents. He stayed there for a few weeks before orders came that meant the start of the air and ground attacks in Iraq. He remembers the 36-hour road march to the border of Iraq. He says there was almost no resistance until An-Asiriyah.

In An-Asiriyah, he remembers many Marines being killed. Iraqi women and children would walk around in the middle of the road waving flags, and when the convoys would stop, enemy fighters suddenly flanked them on both sides. Marines were killed who were only looking to help the women and children in the road.

From there on out, the rules of engagement were out the door, according to Barringer. He says, "It pretty much became something where you cover your own ass." Barringer's battalion ended up taking An-Asiriyah in a day and a half.

That day and a half was only a small part of Barringer's tour through many cities—Bazra, Al-Shatrah, Kut, Baghdad, and more—trying to clean out Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard and search for the elusive weapons of mass destruction that we now know were not there. However, Barringer was lucky. He was told he would be there no longer than six months, and that is about how long he was there. He came back home healthy to a proud family, although he remains in a state of readiness and could be ordered to Iraq or other hot spots around the globe.

Unfortunately, that isn't the story of all the brave men and women that have gone overseas. Barringer said in an interview that many of his friends have had to stay much longer than originally told. He knows of Marines from the Coast who are back in Iraq for their third time.

"Marines are lucky because they usually don't stay in a mission for long. Our jobs are to capture the cities, and then it is left up to the Army and National Guard to occupy those cities—which is what has been happening for months now," Barringer said.

The Bush administration says it won't institute a draft because an all-volunteer military is easier to train and motivate. In a campaign speech this past week, Vice President Cheney said that the all-volunteer military "really has had a remarkable impact, I think, on the quality of our organization, as I say, not just in terms of the people serving but because everybody who is there has signed up (and) wants to be there."

But what about those soldiers and reservists who have completed their responsibilities and want to return to civilian lives?

The Stop-Loss Policy

The controversial Pentagon policy that has extended more than 40,000 men and women's active-duty requirements overseas since the beginning of the war in Iraq is known as the "Stop-Loss" policy. Lt. Col. Tim Powell, the director of public affairs for the Mississippi National Guard, said in an interview that Stop Loss is "a policy that keeps an individual in a unit and does not allow him to get out unless he turns age 60 within the next 12 months." He also says the current policy states that a soldier will be "boots on the ground" for a minimum of 12 months, but a soldier may have to stay longer depending on the needs of the combatant commander.

Kerry called the Stop-Loss Policy a "back-door draft" during his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Boston and recently during the second presidential debate. He sees the policy as a desperate attempt to keep men and women past their original service obligation because the current administration knows that our reserves are experiencing shortages. Kerry argues that the shortages are due to rushing into a war without enough support from our allies.

In the second debate held in St. Louis, Kerry said: "Countries are leaving the coalition, not joining. Eight countries have left it. If Missouri, just given the number of people from Missouri who are in the military over there today, were a country, it would be the third largest country in the coalition, behind Great Britain and the United States. That's not a grand coalition." Poland, in fact, pulled out of the coalition in the days between the first and second debates.

David Barringer views the Stop Loss Policy in a more positive light. He says that while it might not be what everyone in service wants, the policy keeps the military from being forced to send more (and newer) troops over to Iraq, and the policy permits troops already overseas to use their experience and be better leaders. He also admits that the situation is terrible for people with families back home because no one knows when the troops will return home for sure.

Rep. Thompson says the policy is not right. "From my vantage point, if we are keeping our men and women in uniform longer than they are enlisted for, that is some form of a draft," he said.

Conversely, Sen. Cochran denies there is even such a policy. He said in the interview: "There have been no additions or provisions that have been imposed on anyone that hasn't been aware of their obligations under the contract for their services of enlistment."

Families V. Rumsfeld

In fact, military families are suing U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over the forced retention of many troops. These lawsuits are claiming that American citizens cannot constitutionally be required to serve involuntarily and indefinitely at whim. This political hot potato has led reporters to inquire about why the policy was created in the first place.

With the National Guard expecting to fall almost 10 percent short of this year's enlistment goal (for the first time since 1994) and Reservists older than 40 years of age being deployed, it appears that the military overseas is spread a little more than just thin.

On Sept. 23, a Pentagon-appointed panel of outside experts said current forces in Iraq are inadequate for maintaining stability over there. Furthermore, the Government Accountability Office (http://www.gao.gov) has said that, even with the current Stop-Loss Policy, our military will likely run out of National Guard and Reserve troops for the war on terrorism unless changes are made. Currently, reservists can only be involuntarily mobilized for up to a cumulative total of 24 months; the Pentagon has considered changing the policy so that mobilizations could last up to 24 consecutive months before a soldier is sent home. That soldier might then still be subject to additional mobilizations indefinitely.

The GAO also made clear how important the National Guard and Reservists were in the war effort because they have specialized units like military police, intelligence and civil affairs that are in high demand overseas, yet are in short supply in the active duty forces. Over 47,600 members of the National Guard and Reserves were serving in Iraq as of last month, about a third of the 140,000-member U.S. force currently deployed in that area. Furthermore, when you add the number of troops deployed in Afghanistan and rear areas, the total is in excess of 66,000. Since Sept. 11, 2001, more than 335,000 guard and reserve soldiers have been involuntarily mobilized for active duty, according to the GAO. The National Guard and Reserves number about 1.2 million members total.

In a poll in Stars and Stripes, the military newspaper, roughly half the soldiers surveyed indicated they would not re-enlist when their tours end. The administration is trying to alleviate this morale problem by increasing re-enlistment bonuses $7,000-$10,000. But soldiers at Fort Carson, Colo., in one example, have complained that they're being told that if they reject bonuses and don't re-enlist through 2007, they'll be shipped ASAP to Iraq to fulfill the rest of their enlistment, according to accusations published in the Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post. In late September, Rep. Diana DeGette, a Democrat, launched a probe into these allegations, citing calls she had received from the soldiers complaining about the threats.

At a press conference reported by the Rocky Mountain News, Degette said: "This is an outrage. Soldiers who served honorably, fought in Iraq and are near the end of their service should not be threatened with impressment." She then told the press: "The question remains: How widespread is this? How deep does it go into the Pentagon? How far does it go up to the Oval Office?"

Losing Soldiers For Real

Nothing rings truer to the hearts of Americans everywhere than the reality of U.S. fatalities—both the casualties the Pentagon talks about and those it doesn't. Of the 1,213 coalition military deaths in Iraq, 68 are from the United Kingdom. 1,075 of those deaths are Americans. Of those 1,075, 15 are from Mississippi. Four of those fifteen are from the National Guard or Army. Further, the Pentagon has reported that 7,480 are badly wounded. On the other military front in Afghanistan, there have been 136 American deaths.

Another indicator that things are worse than thought is the recent report from the United Press International (UPI) that 16,765 service members have been medically evacuated from Iraq and Afghanistan and are absent from public Pentagon casualty reports commonly used by local newspapers. The Pentagon says some do not fit the definition of a casualty or someone injured in combat; however, Lt. Col. Powell of the Mississippi National Guard in principle agrees with some of the findings of UPI.

"I've heard of injuries sustained by vehicles running over a landmine, and it is classified as non-combat related injury. It is absurd because anytime an enemy insurgent places some type of armament or bomb or a mine with the intent of killing or maiming U.S. or U.S.-led coalition forces that is combat-related," said Powell. "A soldier does not have to be shot with a weapon for it to be a combat-related injury."

The discrepancy lies in how the Pentagon describes a non-combat-related injury. In December, the Pentagon defined a war casualty as "any person who is lost to the organization by having been declared dead, duty status/whereabouts unknown, missing, ill, or injured." Apparently, Pentagon reports do list soldiers that died in non-combat-related events from illness, but the troops that are injured or ailing from the same non-combat-related causes, which are the greater parts that appear to be "lost to the organization," are not reflected in the Pentagon's public reports. Regardless, they aren't available for deployment, meaning more able-bodied soldiers are needed in their places.

Among all the veterans from Iraq seeking help from the Veterans Administration, 5,375 have been diagnosed with mental problems, coming in as the third-leading diagnosis after bone problems and digestive problems. Among those with mental problems, 800 soldiers have become psychotic.

Troop Levels Explained

Searching for origins to the problem the military currently has with troop levels, Pentagon authorities are pointing fingers at post-Cold War reductions that trimmed the Army, which now has approximately 500,000 troops on active duty—about half the size it was 15 years ago. But many analysts say the problem arises from the strain on the military that's been caused by the need to fight on two fronts simultaneously—Iraq and Afghanistan. In those conflicts, a total of about 158,000 troops have been deployed, while the U.S. has maintained force commitments in South Korea and Germany with about 40,000 and 70,000 troops, respectively. Yet, reports everywhere are saying there still are not enough troops in Iraq to maintain the peace.

Congress believes the over-extension must be solved with a major personnel increase. For example, the Senate has voted for bolstering Army ranks with an additional 20,000 troops next year; the House calls for 30,000 more over the next three years. A compromise measure will probably be reached at a joint conference in the fall. Kerry has pledged on the campaign trail to recruit an additional 40,000 troops if he is elected, a claim he repeated in the second debate.

The Bush administration, conversely, has called only for temporary increases in the size of the military and has instead focused on a policy of increasing the military's technical agility and adding to its fighting specialists. (In the second debate, Bush used the word "facile" to explain his vision for the military's future. Facile means "easy." The press has largely assumed that the president meant to say "agile.") In the meantime, however, there seems to be no choice but to rely on the National Guard and Reserves, which comprise over 40 percent of the troops in Iraq.

Lt. Col. Powell said Mississippi is one of the larger National Guard states in the nation. There are currently 4,450 troops and airmen of the Mississippi Army and Air National Guard mobilized on active duty. That means that Mississippi has 5 percent of the 94,907 troops that are currently mobilized on active duty from the U.S. Mississippi currently has 760 troops mobilized overseas, and about 3,300 of the 3,690 others are training at places such as Camp Shelby in Hattiesburg to go overseas for deployment into the Central Command Theater of Operations—primarily Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan. Those stats are only for the Army and National Guard, which, as Barringer said, are the branches used primarily for the stages of occupation we are in now.

Pentagon officials have indicated that they plan to send as many as 15,000 more troops to Iraq during the first four months of 2005, and President Bush continues to insist that "we will stay the course" until Iraq is stabilized. But where will the additional troops come from? Already, 3,300 of those are coming from Mississippi.

The Bush administration insists that there will be no draft, but the "backdoor draft" that has kept so many from the Reserve and National Guard on active duty may have backfired. Quotas for new enlistments have been missed by over 5,000 new members.

Smoke, Thus Fire?

In November 2003, after The Department of Defense and the Selective Service Web sites prompted speculation of the possibility of the reinstatement of the draft by posting a message seeking "Draft Board Volunteers," the administration quietly began a public campaign to bring the draft boards back to life.

"Serve Your Community and the Nation," the site said. "If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards throughout America would decide which young men ... receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service." After the media noticed, the post was removed, but has recently been retooled and placed back on the Department of Defense's Web site with a statement that the solicitation for board volunteers is in no way a sign that the draft might be reinstated.

Among students and young adults, the mere existence of the notice raises eyebrows. One of the indicators mentioned in the e-mails going around campuses nationwide is the public campaign to fill local draft boards. Draft boards report that they were unexpectedly asked to recommend people to fill some of the board seats that are vacant nationwide.

For those who were old enough to fight during the Vietnam War, this is foreshadowing of the worst kind. Even Powell recalls: "When I joined on June 30, 1972, the draft was in effect, but I didn't fear being drafted before then because I had college deferment and I ended up joining anyway. My older brother was drafted to Germany during Vietnam and in 1970. He was lucky he got sent to Germany instead of Vietnam."

Tension is high in both Syria and Iran and on the Korean Peninsula, with some in the White House suggesting that military action may someday be necessary in those places. The Defense Department has not pushed to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots since the Reagan administration in 1981. Recognizing that even the mention of a draft in the months before an election might be politically explosive, politicians everywhere are trying to stomp out fires pertaining to the possibility of the reinstatement of the draft being related to the filling of draft boards.

Barringer, who experienced the war first-hand, says, "All the mess that is going on over there right now ... it isn't going to end soon. We are going to be occupying that country for a while. I could even get called back soon, and I would be proud to go back."

It seems clear that changes need to be made to avoid a draft in the future. According to the GAO, that means restructuring the way personnel issues are handled by the Department of Defense, perhaps including even more drastic Stop Loss measures. But if those are publicized, then they could affect recruitment of volunteers who don't want such uncertainty.

With all the rotations due to troop shortages, the fuss over a draft, and draft board positions being filled, it seems inevitable that young Mississippians would worry over whether they'll be called upon to participate in what Rumsfeld has called the "long, hard slog."

The one thing you can be sure of is that neither presidential candidate—George W. Bush or John Kerry—will say they are in support of reinstating the draft right now. But it seems at least possible that promising no draft now could be the defining "Read My Lips" moment for the next president of the United States.

THE DRAFT TODAY: How It Would Work

If a draft were done today, it would be quite different than it was in 1973 when the last person was drafted in the course of the Vietnam War. Reforms have changed the way in which a draft would be done to make it more equitable and fair along class and gender lines. The draft would also include women and homosexuals this time. There are a lot fewer reasons to get excused from service today.

The Selective Service Web site details changes Congress made in 1971: Before a male could use education as a shield if he could show he was a full-time student making adequate progress towards a college degree. Under the current draft law, college students can have conscriptions delayed until the end of the current semester, unless they are seniors, in which case their induction would be delayed until the end of the academic year. If a draft were held today, local boards would better represent their communities because the provisions made for draft board membership required them to be as representative as possible of the racial and ethnic origins of registrants in the district served by the board.

A draft held today would use a lottery to determine the order of call, too. Before the provisions, local Boards called men ages 18 through 25 years old, oldest first. This caused uncertainty among the potential draftees while they were in the draft-eligible age group. A modern-day draft would implement a lottery system where a person would spend only one year in first priority for the draft—either the year he turned 20 or the year his deferment ended. Each following year, he would be put in a lower priority group and his liability for the draft would lessen more and more. Then, he would not have to worry about waiting until his 26th birthday to be certain he would not be drafted.

Because of treaties like the 2001 Smart Border Declaration, escaping to Canada or Sweden, or almost any country, would not be an option to dodge the draft. Sen. Thad Cochran told the JFP: "Making the draft more equitable is a non-starter, and it presumes that a draft will be reinstated. Therefore, I don't believe this (Smart Border) legislation exists." Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge and Canadian Deputy Prime Minister John Manley signed the treaty Dec. 12, 2001.

The process would begin with the Selective Service immediately setting up a lottery and sending out induction notices by birthday after Congress and the president authorize the draft. Then, local draft boards would meet and evaluate each draftee for medical problems, moral objections, and other issues like family crises and hear the appeals of those who object to being drafted. Finally, the first group of new draftees will be processed and ready for boot camp within 193 days or less after the date marking the start of the draft.

If the draft does happen to surface, there is one thing that Rep. Rangel, Rep. Thompson, Lt. Col. Powell, and David Barringer all agree on—a draft should not discriminate. As Barringer puts it, "When your country is doing a draft, you certainly can't pick parties. That goes for social class or sexual preference or race. That's just fair."

Mississippi's Iraqi War Deaths, as of Oct 11, 2004—

Shubuta
Private 1st Class Damian L. Heidelberg , Nov 15, 2003

Caledonia
Staff Sergeant Jeffrey F. Dayton, Apr 29, 2004

Chunky
Private 1st Class Christopher D. Mabry, Apr 6, 2004

Crystal Springs
Staff Sergeant Joe Nathan Wilson, Nov 2, 2003

Saucier
2nd Lieutenant Therrel Shane Childers, Mar 21, 2003

Hattiesburg
Specialist Joshua I. Bunch, Aug 6, 2004

Philadelphia
2nd Lieutenant Matthew R. Stovall, Aug 22, 2004

Jackson
Specialist Larry Kenyatta Brown, Apr 5, 2003

Kokomo
Specialist James A. Chance III, Nov 6, 2003

Natchez
Corporal Henry Levon Brown, Apr 8, 2003

Picayune
Sergeant 1st Class Clint D. Ferrin, Mar 13, 2004

Philadelphia
Sergeant Joshua S. Ladd, May 1, 2004

Jackson/Tutwiler
Specialist Raphael S. Davis, Dec 2, 2003

Pricedale
Specialist Jeremiah J. DiGiovanni, Nov 15, 2003

Utica
Staff Sgt. Kenneth R.Bradley, May 28, 2003

U.S. Military Casualties in Iraq

Deaths Since War Began (3/19/03): 1,075
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03): 936
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 615
Since Handover (6/29/04): 216
Total Americans Wounded: 7,480
Other Coalition Troops: 137
US Military Deaths – Afghanistan: 136
Iraqi Body Count: 13,182
American Civilian Casualties: 157

U.S. Deaths By Month (as of Oct. 11, 2004)

Mar-03 65
Apr-03 73
May-03 37
Jun-03 30
Jul-03 47
Aug-03 35
Sep-03 30
Oct-03 43
Nov-03 82
Dec-03 40

Jan-04 47
Feb-04 20
Mar-04 52
Apr-04 135
May-04 80
Jun-04 42
Jul-04 54
Aug-04 66
Sep-04 80
Oct-04 17

Total: 1075

Previous Comments

ID

77854

Comment

I just can't agree that stop loss is a back door draft. As a national guardsman myself I was well aware the contract I signed included stop loss and IRR. I volunteered for this on my own free will as did all others regardless of why they joined. Stop loss was last used in the first gulf war so this is not the first time it's happened, just seems to be the first time it's gotten so much media attention. It is not only a method of keeping unit strength up, but a way of maintaining unit cohesion. It is difficult in the National Guard or Reserves to fill leadership slots. If an E6 or E7 leaves someone has to be trained and qualified for that spot. For instance MS only has one infantry battalion. The MOS for infantry is 11B. If a platoon sergeant leaves he will have to be replaced by someone else. With the whole battalion being deployed they can't transfer another 11B qualified E7 from inside the battalion because he is more than likely already in a slot. They can't get someone from another battalion because he will probably not be MOSQ. Now someone has to be promoted and trained. Kerry has said he wants to add two divisions to the military, one combat arms, one support. He hasn't said where he will get all the soldiers needed to accomplish this. Even with a huge campain drive his lack of support for the military will not help him. Personally I don't plan on continuing my service under him for fear of how many of us he will get killed. The only option I see is a draft which I and most others I've talked to in the military are against. Kerry also failed to mention plans to move away from the large cold war divisions to smaller "units of action". They will be more brigade sized combined arms units. They are expected to be easier to deploy and spend less time deployed than the larger divisions we have now.

Author

nothing

Date

2004-10-13T23:39:43-06:00

ID

77855

Comment

just came as an alert from Howard Dean on the topic of the draft: Stop the draft: Watch the new draft ad: http://www.bushandthedraft.com Last week 60,000 of us demanded honesty about the draftóand people took notice. Cable news channels and major newspapers have been buzzing about the draft ever since. Other organizations also heard. MoveOn and a group called Win Back Respect produced a TV ad about this issue. Over a million young people will see it on The Daily Show, MTV, and ESPN. You can add to this momentum even moreósign the petition demanding honesty about our military commitments: http://www.democracyforamerica.com/nodraft We still need to get the message out. The mainstream media coverage has focused on unsubstantiated rumors of some "secret plan" for a draft. They are missing the point. It's not about a secret planówe should be concerned about a draft because, when it comes to meeting all of the military commitments he has made, George Bush has no plan. He says he will "stay the course". But if we stay the course with this president, he will face a choice: drastically reduce our commitments or reinstate the draft. Add your voice to the growing numbers asking which one he will choose: http://www.democracyforamerica.com/nodraft He failed to bring meaningful allied help into Iraq. He allowed al Qaeda, North Korea, and Iran to become more dangerous. And he has left our homeland unprotected by sending the National Guard to Iraq. George Bush says he has no plans to reinstate the draftóbut his reckless decisions may leave no choice. A quiet draft has already begunóand it is no secret. Active duty soldiers who finish their commitments are being forced to stay on. We have begun calling up forces like the Individual Ready Reserves, consisting of older reservists who have not been on active duty and have not trained for some time. And there's no end in sight. Americans need the facts. Join us in demanding the honesty we deserve. Thank you, Governor Howard Dean, M.D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-14T12:27:17-06:00

ID

77856

Comment

Another really bad sign in Iraq: n a brazen attack that punctured any illusions of a safe haven in the capital, five people, including three American civilians, were killed today when two separate explosions were set off inside the heavily controlled Green Zone in central Baghdad. The three Americans were carrying out work for the United States Defense Department, said Lt. Col. James Hutton, a spokesman for the First Infantry Division. The nationalities of the others were not immediately known. A total of 18 people were wounded in the attacks, including an American soldier, a United States airman and two American civilians, Colonel Hutton said. A spokesman for an American company, DynCorp, which he described as a diversified defense contractor, said the firm "did suffer some casualties, including some fatalities" in the blasts, but he could not yet confirm the number. Most, but not all, of DynCorp's contracts in Iraq are with the State Department, the spokesman, Mike Dickerson, said. But he said he did not know which contract "these individuals" were working under. DynCorp is based in Los Angeles. The group led by the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, One God and Jihad, claimed responsibility for the attacks. Full story Remember, this was the "safe" zone. We need a real alliance to help us, and we need it now. Enough soldiers have died. What I don't understand is why Americans aren't lining up at the gates of the White House waiting to hear Bush's plan for "winning" this war without bringing more allies on board. These are young Americans dying over there in this poorly planned and executed war. What about them!?!

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-14T14:37:20-06:00

ID

77857

Comment

Remember, this was the "safe" zone. We need a real alliance to help us, and we need it now. Ok, where are you going to get it from?

Author

nothing

Date

2004-10-14T16:19:47-06:00

ID

77858

Comment

Nowhere, with Bush president. He has alienated too much of the world. That's a major reason that we must change presidents. I honestly believe that Kerry can get other countries back to the negotiating table. Bush won't. We know that already. (There were noises from Germany this week that they might re-consider sending troops with a different president. Meantime, Bush's big ally (first debate: "don't forget Poland!") pulled out after the first debate. Watching those debates, it's hard to imagine this petulant, angry president negotiating with anybody. It's clear that if you don't agree with him, he doesn't want to deal with you. He's clearly way in over his head. The debates made that crystal clear.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-14T16:44:07-06:00

ID

77859

Comment

Even if Germany does send more troops with another president, it won't be many at all. It would be the same size as what poland and other small countries are sending that the democrats scoff at. So you add one or two countries with about 2000 troops each. No offense, but that's hardly worth a presidential change. On another note, back to the 2 divisions kerry wants to create with troops that aren't there without a draft. Can someone tell me just what a "support" division is. I've seen infantry, armor, armored cav, but I don't think I've ever seen a "support" division. Even though kerry was in the military I don't think he really grasps the culture of the military or really understands how to maneuver it as well as Bush and his staff. These large divisions which we are trying to get away from will hinder deployments. With one "support division" that means it will have to be constantly deployed while other divisions rotate in and out. Units of action will already have support built in and will deploy as a group. Even the current model of divisions have their own support units built in although outside units often help. I can also tell you most of the soldiers I know do not trust Kerry at all. Especially when it comes to career guys. Kerry is weak willed and a bit too emotional to be a commander and chief. He changes his mind too often. Sometimes it is good to change your mind, don't get me wrong, but in military matters it costs lives. He is a commander and gives his intent and lays out the framework, the rest of us handle it from there. I think Kerry will micromanage to the point making aufstragtaktik very difficult for military leaders.

Author

nothing

Date

2004-10-14T17:05:40-06:00

ID

77860

Comment

No offense, but that's hardly worth a presidential change. What is worth a presidential change is to replace a president who has done a very bad jog on just about every front, who is a partisan ideologue and who has alienated the world. We cannot afford to stay this course. It's as if Bush defenders truly can't see what's at stake in the next four years. . Kerry is weak willed and a bit too emotional to be a commander and chief. He changes his mind too often. Sometimes it is good to change your mind, don't get me wrong, but in military matters it costs lives. nothing, you are drinking the partisan Kool-aid here. When you check the evidence behind Kerry's alleged "flip-flops," they don't hold up. What you actually see if a person of resolve, not weak will, who is willing to get more information and to even correct himself when necessary. With Bush, he's never done a thing wrong in his life. Bush has a long record of flip-flopping on important issues, often saying what he needs to get support and then pulling back what he promised, classic bait-and-switch. No Child Left Behind is a prime example. Also, I"ve talked to a number of military folks who have the opposite that you do about Bush and Kerry, and who believe that,more than anything, the U.S. needs more allies to clean up Bush's mess in Iraq to lower the number of U.S. soldiers who are going to die in the future. I suspect the military community is as confused as the rest of this society about this president, and that's to be expected.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-14T17:22:32-06:00

ID

77861

Comment

Republican Party head Ed Gillespie is threatening Rock the Vote, telling them to drop talking about the possibility of a draft. He wrote in a letter Wednesday: [A]s you must be aware, this urban myth regarding a draft has been thoroughly debunked by no less than the President of the United States, who explicited stated, 'We don't need the draft. Look, the all-volunteer Army is working...,' as well as the Vice President, who explained, 'And the notion that somebody's peddling out there that there is a secret plan to reinstate the draft, hogwash, not true.'" [...] "[Y]our 'Draft Your Friends' campaign is being conducted with malicious intent and reckless disregard for the truth," Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie told the nonpartisan group in a letter Wednesday. [...] It is unfortunate that you feel the need to engage in a misinformation campaign regarding an alleged draft to energize young voters. This is the sort of malicious political deception that is likely to increase voter cynicism and in fact decrease the youth vote, as well as raising serious legall issues regarding the political motivations of your efforts. PDF of the full letter

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-14T17:40:02-06:00

ID

77862

Comment

Rock the Vote answers Gillespie: The letter I received from you yesterday was quite a surprise. It struck us as just the sort of "malicious political deception" that is likely to increase voter cynicism and decrease the youth vote. In fact, it is a textbook case of attempted censorship, very much in line with those that triggered our organization's founding some fifteen years ago. I am stunned that you would say that the issue of the military draft is an "urban myth"that has been "thoroughly debunked by no less than the President of the United States." I have some news for you. Just because President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld, and for that matter Senator Kerry, say that there is not going to be a draft does not make it so. Just because Congress holds a transparently phony vote against the draft does not mean there isn't going to be one. Anyone who thinks that the youth of America are going to take a politician's word on this topic is living on another planet. By your logic, there should be no debate about anything that you disagree with. There's a place for that kind of sentiment (and your threats), but its not here in our country. There are questions that the politicians are running away from. How long can we keep 138,000 U.S. troops or more on the ground in Iraq? What if full-scale civil war erupts there, as the CIA has warned is a realistic possibility? Would the next President be faced with a choice of pulling out of Iraq rather than institute a draft? Would women be drafted? What exactly would the draft-age be? According to the Pentagon's own internal assessment, there are "inadequate total numbers" of troops to meet U.S. security interests. The current issue of Time magazine reports that, "General John Keane, who retired last year as the Army's No. 2 officer, says the continued success of the all-volunteer military is not guaranteed" Keane has told Congress that adding more than 50,000 troops to the Army would require thinking about a return to the draft." But you want young people to believe that the draft is just an "urban myth." I was expecting that you were going to present some facts to back up your assertion. But, instead, you have demanded that we stop talking about it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-14T17:41:31-06:00

ID

77863

Comment

Here's the Oct. 18 Time magazine piece about the draft.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-14T17:48:29-06:00

ID

77864

Comment

L.A. Times piece on Rock the Vote draft campaign: An army of new voters received a startling call to serve recently, when one of the largest nonpartisan groups trying to increase voting by young people sent fake draft cards to nearly 640,000 e-mail addresses. "You've been drafted" was the subject line of the message sent by Rock the Vote. The message contained an image of a draft card addressed to the recipient and warned, "real cards may be in the mail soon if the situation doesn't improve." [...] Rock the Vote political director Hans Riemer said the group was trying to inform its members about the limits of U.S. military forces, not persuade them to vote for a particular candidate. "It would be crazy if young people went to the polls and didn't factor this into their votes, however they come down on it. It's very real," said Riemer. "We're one major military conflict away from the draft. I don't see why candidates get to talk about war all day long and we can't talk about a draft."

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-14T17:52:11-06:00

ID

77865

Comment

ladd: I dare say I know many more military personnel. Many are vets of this war. I know their are those that do not support bush. I'm just saying the majority of the ones I know do. I'm also saying I have more experience in the military than you. I am not drinking partisan coolaide, I'm not a republican and did not voted for Nader in the last election. Gore was my second choice although after he made such a specticle of himself I decided it was better that he lost. I do not think the war is going badly. Success does not sell in the media no matter who you are. If Kerry wins he will do nothing right in the eyes of the media just as bush has done nothing right. I have talked to friends from the 1st Cav, 1st ID, 3rd ID, 82nd AB, 890th ENG, and 173 Airwing. While they do not trust these people they do tell me we are making progress and most areas are not as bad as the ones you see on TV. My unit is heading their right now. Unfortunately I will be going to Ft. Benning in 2 days and will probably not deploy with them. I never said flipflop, and I said there is nothing wrong with changing your mind. However when it comes to military matters, there is a very delicate balance of creating a plan and following throwgh with it and changing your mind. I have studied military history a good bit from a principles of war aspect and I just do not see the makings of a Commander and Chief in Kerry. I feel so strongly about it, unless we suffer a serious attack again under Kerry I plan on resigning my commission as soon as my commitment is up if he is elected.

Author

nothing

Date

2004-10-14T18:06:59-06:00

ID

77866

Comment

"These people" = Iraqi's from a security aspect

Author

nothing

Date

2004-10-14T18:08:36-06:00

ID

77867

Comment

nothing, I'm not trying to compare military experience with you, although I suspect that you also have much more military experience than George W. Bush. I am an American citizen and, as such, it is my responsibility to pay attention to what my president is doing with my country. We all are equal in that. We can all also do math, and it's not adding up in Iraq these days, either in the resources it's costing us or the number of troops that it will take to clean up the mess. And I disagree with you that it's better than the American people are hearing, although due to your impending deployment I will respectfully let that one go. My prayers are truly with you wherever you end up. (I lived on Fort Benning for a while, by the way, and at Fort Stewart. Haven't been back there in years, though. My stepfather, whom I loved dearly, was a veteran of Korea and Vietnam combat, and I cherish his dogtags and medals. I don't tell you that to build my military cred; just to let you know that I have been been very close to people who have experienced war first-hand.) On the wider topic of Bush's policy in Iraq, here is the letter released this week and signed by more than 650 foreign-affairs specialists. These people certainly know more I do about international affairs and the military: We, a nonpartisan group of foreign affairs specialists, have joined together to call urgently for a change of course in American foreign and national security policy. We judge that the current American policy centered around the war in Iraq is the most misguided one since the Vietnam period, one which harms the cause of the struggle against extreme Islamist terrorists. One result has been a great distortion in the terms of public debate on foreign and national security policyóan emphasis on speculation instead of facts, on mythology instead of calculation, and on misplaced moralizing over considerations of national interest. [1] † We write to challenge some of these distortions. Although we applaud the Bush Administration for its initial focus on destroying al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan, its failure to engage sufficient U.S. troops to capture or kill the mass of al-Qaida fighters in the later stages of that war was a great blunder. It is a fact that the early shift of U.S. focus to Iraq diverted U.S. resources, including special operations forces and intelligence capabilities, away from direct pursuit of the fight against the terrorists. [2] Many of the justifications offered by the Bush Administration for the war in Iraq have been proven untrue by credible studies, including by U.S. government agencies.† There is no evidence that Iraq assisted al-Qaida, and its prewar involvement in international terrorism was negligible. [3] † Iraqís arsenal of chemical and biological weapons was negligible, and its nuclear weapons program virtually nonexistent. [4] † In comparative terms, Iran is and was much the greater sponsor of terrorism, and North Korea and Pakistan pose much the greater risk of nuclear proliferation to terrorists. Even on moral grounds, the case for war was dubious: the war itself has killed over a thousand Americans and unknown thousands of Iraqis, and if the threat of civil war becomes reality, ordinary Iraqis could be even worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein. The Administration knew most of these facts and risks before the war, and could have discovered the others, but instead it played down, concealed or misrepresented them. Read full letter

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-14T18:28:37-06:00

ID

77868

Comment

He failed to bring meaningful allied help into Iraq. He allowed al Qaeda, North Korea, and Iran to become more dangerous. And he has left our homeland unprotected by sending the National Guard to Iraq. George Bush says he has no plans to reinstate the draftóbut his reckless decisions may leave no choice. A quiet draft has already begunóand it is no secret. Active duty soldiers who finish their commitments are being forced to stay on. We have begun calling up forces like the Individual Ready Reserves, consisting of older reservists who have not been on active duty and have not trained for some time. And there's no end in sight. 1. We still have plenty of undeployed National Guard units left. Others are already doing homeland security. 2. IRR is not the draft. People in IRR volunteered for the military and signed up for IRR if they did not complete 8 years of service. 3. Stoploss is also in your contract you volunteered for. This is not a draft by any means. I do not think Al Queda has become more dangerous, they see quite disrupted and seem to be having problems with command and control, of course none of us will ever know the real intel on them, but it's easy for us to all speculate one way or the other for political gain. I think they have their hands full with the middle east. Remember, this was the "safe" zone. We need a real alliance to help us, and we need it now. Enough soldiers have died. What I don't understand is why Americans aren't lining up at the gates of the White House waiting to hear Bush's plan for "winning" this war without bringing more allies on board. These are young Americans dying over there in this poorly planned and executed war. What about them!?! Maybe because many American's do not share the opinions you do. Military deaths: WWI 116,516 WWII 405,399 Korea 54,246 Vietnam 58,209 I'd say we are doing OK compared to past wars. I would even say that the war is not poorly planned or executed. I would also say Kerry's lack of support for getting our soldiers gear is very troublesome. Now before you give me the "we deployed without body armor" speech let me tell you the line units did have body armor, it's always been part of their TO&E. Support units did not have as much, however they now have it. Study the principles of war and I think you will find the suprise, manuever and speed of the attack more than made up for the lack of body armor.

Author

nothing

Date

2004-10-14T18:38:23-06:00

ID

77869

Comment

BTW, I hope I don't seem like I am attacking your personally, especially when I say many disagree with you. I'd say judging by the polls and the dead heat of the election this is true.

Author

nothing

Date

2004-10-14T18:43:16-06:00

ID

77870

Comment

nothing, I respect your opinion on this, and the position you're in, but I do not agree with your conclusions. I'm happy to leave it there, though, and please accept my personal thanks for being willing to serve the country.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-14T18:44:42-06:00

ID

77871

Comment

No personal offense taken, nothing. You've been a perfect gentleman here, and a model for how to agree and disagree civilly. Re the polls: I'd also point out that at least half the people agree with me. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-14T18:46:20-06:00

ID

77872

Comment

Re the polls: I'd also point out that at least half the people agree with me. ;-) That's why I said many and not most :)

Author

nothing

Date

2004-10-14T19:20:18-06:00

ID

77873

Comment

I have to add to this my nephew's actions. He served in the Army for nearly 14 years, and began the process to leave as soon as GW Bush was named president. Why? To paraphrase him, "I have a feeling this guy is really going to start some deep s***." His final three years were spent at Ft. Hood, so he had a lot of time to observe then-Governor Bush and found the man lacking. My nephew weighed his options carefully: as a veteran who had already spent time in the conflicts in Haiti and Bosnia, he felt the time had arrived to return to university and be more attentive to his son (he's a single, custodial parent). Now, he worries about his younger sister. She's a biochemist involved in HIV research who joined the Guard to help pay for tuition. If called, she will report without complaint, no doubt about it. But our nation and the scientific community would be less one dedicated researcher. Hard question, not flippant: what are the priorities here? I wonder if compulsory national service on some level would not be a bad idea; not everyone would have to be military. I would like to see something bring us back to the closeness between our citizens in public life, and our citizens who are in the military. I lament the deepening divide between the two groups. It is dangerous to freedom to have the military feel they are a special (or threatened) class, just as bad as those who denigrate military service, knowing nothing about the sacrifices. Each time I see Senator Daniel Inouye's name, I am filled with pride knowing he was awarded the Congressional Medal Of Honor for his service in WW2. When the Senate loses Inouye, it will be a sad day. When Karl Rove and Paul Wolfowitz leave, I'll buy the house a round.

Author

corrosiongone

Date

2004-10-15T01:27:10-06:00

ID

77874

Comment

For a man who claims such impressive claims to being able to get along with our allies (aka Kerry), he has certainly put his foot in it with his declarations of those countries who are serving in Iraq with the US as being the "bribed and the coerced..." Thank you Nothing for serving our country in the military, and I would certainly give your opinion and statements more weight on the military than those who have not served. I was unable to serve myself when I had an appointment to Annapolis, as I did not pass the physical - so I appreciate all the more your service. Probably the most important ally we have currently in Iraq are the Iraqi people themselves. Progress is definitely being made in making the country more democratic, albeit not as quickly or smoothly as we would like or as anticipated originally. However, the efforts made now will be worth it in the long run, as having three functional democracies in that region will promote long term stability and give other individuals in the area hope for their future.

Author

Fielding

Date

2004-10-15T09:27:06-06:00

ID

77875

Comment

Clarion-Ledger reports: A 17-member Army Reserve platoon with troops from Jackson and around the Southeast deployed to Iraq is under arrest for refusing a "suicide mission" to deliver fuel, the troops' relatives said Thursday. The soldiers refused an order on Wednesday to go to Taji, Iraq ó north of Baghdad ó because their vehicles were considered "deadlined" or extremely unsafe, said Patricia McCook of Jackson, wife of Sgt. Larry O. McCook. Sgt. McCook, a deputy at the Hinds County Detention Center, and the 16 other members of the 343rd Quartermaster Company from Rock Hill, S.C., were read their rights and moved from the military barracks into tents, Patricia McCook said her husband told her during a panicked phone call about 5 a.m. Thursday. The platoon could be charged with the willful disobeying of orders, punishable by dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay and up to five years confinement, said military law expert Mark Stevens, an associate professor of justice studies at Wesleyan College in Rocky Mount, N.C. [...] U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson said he plans to submit a congressional inquiry today on behalf of the Mississippi soldiers to launch an investigation into whether they are being treated improperly. "I would not want any member of the military to be put in a dangerous situation ill-equipped," said Thompson, who was contacted by families. "I have had similar complaints from military families about vehicles that weren't armor-plated, or bullet-proof vests that are outdated. It concerns me because we made over $150 billion in funds available to equip our forces in Iraq. "President Bush takes the position that the troops are well-armed, but if this situation is true, it calls into question how honest he has been with the country," Thompson said.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-15T12:34:28-06:00

ID

77876

Comment

Probably the most important ally we have currently in Iraq are the Iraqi people themselves. Juan Cole, a Middle East history professor at the University of Michigan, was interviewed on NPR today about the (maybe) impending elections in Iraq. He made the point that it is very unlikely that the Iraqi people are going to elect people that the U.S. approves of and that the election will likely be an embarassment to the U.S. -- that is why it was pushed back until January, after the elections. He also said that a widespread, prevailing wish of the Iraqi people is that the U.S. soldiers get out as soon as possible. They were talking about neighborhoods and cities that the U.S. is targeting one by one to look for insurgents. However, a Christian Science Monitor reporter said, the U.S. is getting less and less careful about ensuring that the targets are correct and don't contain innocent civilians. This sloppiness is angering the Iraqi people. Juan Cole as a blog on the Middle East conflicts at http://www.juancole.com . He wrote yesterday: The visions for the American future laid out by George W. Bush and John Kerry differ starkly on matters of war and peace, and the shape of American power in the Middle East. Bush has put enormous resources into the Iraq war compared to those he has committed to fighting al-Qaeda. Kerry pledges to concentrate on stamping out al-Qaeda. The American public has a clear choice between a continued US push into the Middle East, with bases and very likely further wars, and between a calmer, more patient foreign policy that makes room to address the problem of practically fighting terrorism.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-15T12:42:01-06:00

ID

77877

Comment

Kerry comments on draft. AP reports: There is a "great potential of a draft" to replenish U.S. forces in Iraq if President Bush wins a second term, Democratic challenger John Kerry said on a campaign stop in Iowa. Bush said in the second presidential debate that there would be no revival of the military draft under any circumstances if he is re-elected. "We're not going to have a draft, period," the president said. However, Kerry told The Des Moines Register, "With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of a draft." The interview was published Friday as Kerry was leaving for Wisconsin and a speech on the economy.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-15T12:45:53-06:00

ID

77878

Comment

Re the Stop Loss policy and lawsuit against the White House, DeWayne Wickham writes in USA Today: This could be the straw that breaks the back of the Bush administration's back-door draft. A California National Guardsman has filed a court challenge to a presidential order that forces members of this nation's all-volunteer Army to remain on active duty beyond their discharge dates. The case tugs at the Achilles' heel of the president's war policies. The lawsuit, filed last week in a San Francisco federal court, contends that the "stop-loss" program is illegally based on an executive order Bush invoked days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In that order, the president declared a national emergency and gave the Pentagon authority to involuntarily extend military personnel on active duty "for not more than 24 consecutive months." In the days since, the president has opposed calls for reinstatement of the draft ó which would give the military a steady stream of recruits ó because, he says, staffing needs are being meet. 'An unfair burden' What the lawsuit makes clear is that the Bush administration's stop-loss program is an undeclared draft. "We feel it's a policy that's putting an unfair burden on servicemen and their families," said Joshua Sondheimer, one of the attorneys representing the California Guardsman, who is identified only as "John Doe."

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-15T13:12:20-06:00

ID

77879

Comment

The New York Times has a story tonight on the Jackson soldiers who apparently refused to go on a mission because of poor equipment: the mission too dangerous, in part because their vehicles were in such poor shape. Some of the troops' concerns were being addressed, military officials said. But a coalition spokesman in Baghdad noted that ``a small number of the soldiers involved chose to express their concerns in an inappropriate manner causing a temporary breakdown in discipline.'' [...] A commanding general has ordered the unit to undergo a ``safety-maintenance stand down,'' during which it will conduct no further missions as the unit's vehicles undergo safety inspections, the military said. On Wednesday, 19 members of the platoon did not show up for a scheduled 7 a.m. meeting in Tallil, in southeastern Iraq, to prepare for the fuel convoy's departure a few hours later, the military statement said. ``An initial report indicated that some of the 19 soldiers (not all) refused to participate in the convoy as directed,'' the military statement says. The Clarion-Ledger, citing interviews with relatives of some of the soldiers, said platoon members refused to go on Wednesday's mission because their vehicles were in poor condition and they had no capable armed escort. They were going to Taji, which is north of Baghdad. The mission was ultimately carried out by other soldiers from the 343rd, which has at least 120 soldiers, the military said. Convoys in Iraq are frequently subject to ambushes and roadside bombings. [...] ``Preliminary findings indicate that there were several contributing factors that led to the late convoy incident and alleged refusal to participate by some soldiers. It would be inappropriate to discuss those factors while the investigation continues,'' the military statement said.[...] Patricia McCook, of Jackson, Miss., said her husband, Staff Sgt. Larry O. McCook, was also among those detained. She said he told her in a telephone call that he did not feel comfortable taking his soldiers on another trip. ``He told me that three of the vehicles they were to use were 'deadlines' ... not safe to go in a hotbed like that,'' she said, the newspaper reported.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-15T18:07:01-06:00

ID

77880

Comment

Clarion-Ledger today: Army commanders reassigned five members of an Army platoon, including two Mississippians, who refused a mission in Iraq earlier this week because of faulty equipment, a military spokesman said Friday. Dov Schwartz, Army spokesman, said the commanding general of the 13th Corps Support Command has initiated an investigation into actions by 17 members of the 343rd Army Reserve Quartermaster Company. It was an "isolated incident confined to a small group," Schwartz said, but preliminary findings show the soldiers raised "valid concerns." Refusal of orders during wartime, which by law can be punishable by death, would most likely be punished by dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay and up to five years confinement, said military law expert Mark Stevens of Rocky Mount, N.C. [...] A preliminary investigation of the apparent refusal of orders revealed there were several contributing factors that led to the platoon's actions, Schwartz said, without elaborating. [...] The soldiers cited "deadlined" or extremely unsafe vehicles in refusing to go on the convoy, relatives said. The platoon in question has troops from Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi and South Carolina, relatives said. [...]Genia White, Spc. Reeves' mother, also of Denver, N.C., said her son has talked in the past about being ill-equipped for some missions. "Why do they not have what they need?" she asked. "My taxes are supposed to be paying for those things, but I have to worry about my son being ill-equipped while he is being fired at. That makes no sense." Harold Casey Sr. of Louisville, Ky., is the grandfather of Spc. Justin Rogers, 22, who was among those detained. Casey, who has not spoken with his grandson, was told the platoon refused the convoy because they had been under heavy attack and were so sleepy that drivers were nodding off and running off the road. Casey said he was told Sgt. McCook of Jackson played a major role in the platoon refusing the orders. "I was told he really stuck his neck out for his men," Casey said of McCook. "They were so shorthanded it was pathetic."

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-16T11:35:36-06:00

ID

77881

Comment

Interesting draft timeline posted on DailyKos right now.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-16T11:48:25-06:00

ID

77882

Comment

New York Times: In the debate over the war and its aftermath, the Bush administration has portrayed the insurgency that is still roiling Iraq today as an unfortunate, and unavoidable, accident of history, an enemy that emerged only after melting away during the rapid American advance toward Baghdad. The sole mistake Mr. Bush has acknowledged in the war is in not foreseeing what he termed that "catastrophic success." But many military officers and civilian officials who served in Iraq in the spring and summer of 2003 say the administration's miscalculations cost the United States valuable momentum - and enabled an insurgency that was in its early phases to intensify and spread. "I think that there were Baathist Sunnis who planned to resist no matter what happened and at all cost, but we missed opportunities, and that drove more of them into the resistance," Jay Garner, the first civilian administrator of Iraq and a retired Army lieutenant general, said in an interview, referring to the Baath Party of Mr. Hussein and to his Sunni Muslim supporters. "Things were stirred up far more than they should have been. We did not seal the borders because we did not have enough troops to do that, and that brought in terrorists." A senior officer who served in Iraq but did not want to be identified because of the sensitivity of his position said: "The real question is, did there have to be an insurgency? Did we help create the insurgency by missing the window of opportunity in the period right after Saddam was removed from power?" Long analysis/worth a read

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-19T12:26:20-06:00

ID

77883

Comment

Paul Krugman argues that a draft may be inevitable under Bush politices: Those who are worrying about a revived draft are in the same position as those who worried about a return to budget deficits four years ago, when President Bush began pushing through his program of tax cuts. Back then he insisted that he wouldn't drive the budget into deficit - but those who looked at the facts strongly suspected otherwise. Now he insists that he won't revive the draft. But the facts suggest that he will. There were two reasons some of us never believed Mr. Bush's budget promises. First, his claims that his tax cuts were affordable rested on patently unrealistic budget projections. Second, his broader policy goals, including the partial privatization of Social Security - which is clearly on his agenda for a second term - would involve large costs that were not included even in those unrealistic projections. This led to the justified suspicion that his election-year promises notwithstanding, Mr. Bush would preside over a return to budget deficits. It's exactly the same when it comes to the draft. Mr. Bush's claim that we don't need any expansion in our military is patently unrealistic; it ignores the severe stress our Army is already under. And the experience in Iraq shows that pursuing his broader foreign policy doctrine - the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war - would require much larger military forces than we now have. This leads to the justified suspicion that after the election, Mr. Bush will seek a large expansion in our military, quite possibly through a return of the draft. Mr. Bush's assurances that this won't happen are based on a denial of reality.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-19T12:29:15-06:00

ID

77884

Comment

More...this is good: Commanders in Iraq have asked for more troops (ignore the administration's denials) - but there are no more troops to send. The manpower shortage is so severe that training units like the famous Black Horse Regiment, which specializes in teaching other units the ways of battle, are being sent into combat. As the military expert Phillip Carter says, "This is like eating your seed corn."[...] The reality is that the Iraq war, which was intended to demonstrate the feasibility of the Bush doctrine, has pushed the U.S. military beyond its limits. Yet there is no sign that Mr. Bush has been chastened. By all accounts, in a second term the architects of that doctrine, like Paul Wolfowitz, would be promoted, not replaced. The only way this makes sense is if Mr. Bush is prepared to seek a much larger Army - and that means reviving the draft.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-19T12:31:05-06:00

ID

77885

Comment

See this thread about a plan being quietly developed to draft doctors and other health-care workers.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-21T08:52:48-06:00

ID

77886

Comment

Funny draft parody site: http://www.enjoythedraft.com/

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-22T17:37:58-06:00

ID

77887

Comment

Bob Herbert today on how this administration has treated our troops: ot long ago I interviewed a soldier who was paralyzed from injuries he had suffered in a roadside bombing in Iraq. Like so many other wounded soldiers I've talked to, he expressed no anger and no bitterness about the difficult hand he's been dealt as a result of the war. But when I asked this soldier, Eugene Simpson Jr., a 27-year-old staff sergeant from Dale City, Va., whom he had been fighting in Iraq - who, exactly, the enemy was - he looked up from his wheelchair and stared at me for a long moment. Then, in a voice much softer than he had been using for most of the interview, and with what seemed like a mixture of sorrow, regret and frustration, he said: "I don't know. That would be my answer. I don't know." We have not done right by the troops we've sent to Iraq to fight this crazy, awful war. We haven't given them a clear mission, and we haven't protected them well. I'm reminded of the famous scene in "On the Waterfront" when Terry Malloy, the character played by Marlon Brando, tells his brother: "You shoulda looked out for me a little bit. You shoulda taken care of me just a little bit." The thing to always keep in mind about our troops in Iraq is that they were sent to fight the wrong war. America's clearly defined and unmistakable enemy, Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, was in Afghanistan. So the men and women fighting and dying in Iraq were thrown into a pointless, wholly unnecessary conflict. That tragic move was made worse by the failure of the U.S. to send enough troops to effectively wage the war that we started in Iraq. And we never fully equipped the troops we did send. The people who ordered up this war had no idea what they were doing. They were wildly overconfident, blinded by hubris and a dangerous, overarching ideology. They thought it would be a cakewalk. In May of 2003, President Bush thought the war was over. It had barely begun. Many thousands have died in the long and bloody months since then. Even now, Dick Cheney, with a straight face, is calling Iraq "a remarkable success story."

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-10-29T15:27:23-06:00

ID

77888

Comment

Scare tactics? The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported Saturday that the Bush administration has investigated a plan to reinstate the draft. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld indignantly scoffs and scolds about the relentless rumors that the Bush administration is planning to reinstate the military draft. "This plot is so secret that it doesn't exist," Rumsfeld wrote this week in the Deseret News of Salt Lake City. "To my knowledge, in the time I have served as secretary of defense, the idea of reinstating the draft has never been debated, endorsed, discussed, theorized, pondered or even whispered by anyone in the Bush administration." [...] This may come as a shock to the Pentagon chief, but most of the rumors have arisen from actions within the Bush administration, which has studied how to expand draft registration to include women, target some civilian work specialties for special attention by the draft and extend the required draft registration age from 25 years old to 34 years. [emphasis mine] These draft plans were discussed at the Pentagon on Feb. 11, 2003, by the chief of the Selective Service System, the federal agency that would operate a draft, and senior Pentagon officials. [...] According to a copy of the meeting agenda, the Selective Service System leaders reviewed the past 30 years of draft registration planning and then made their pitch for more aggressive draft preparations. "In line with today's needs, the Selective Service System's structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered toward maintaining a national inventory of American men and, for the first time, women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on identifying individuals with critical skills," the agency said in its February 2003 proposal. The agency officials recommended formation of a government-wide task force "to examine the feasibility of this proposal" and design efforts "to market the concept" to congressional lawmakers. The Arlington, Va.-based Selective Service System, which is independent from the Defense Department, envisioned the creation of a massive database that would require all registrants to indicate whether they have skills "critical to national security or community health and safety." The database could then be used to fill key posts throughout the armed forces and federal, state and local government agencies in time of crisis. Some of the skill areas where the armed forces are facing "critical shortages" include linguists and computer specialists, the agency said. As part of the expanded draft registration process, Americans would be required to regularly update the agency on their skills until they reach age 35. The six-page proposal was initially made public after Hearst Newspapers filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Ahem, friggin', ahem. Fool us once ...

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-01T12:12:46-06:00