Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

LAT: Expanding the military, without a draft (Lower Standards)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-25-06 02:00 AM
Original message
LAT: Expanding the military, without a draft (Lower Standards)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-draft24dec24,1,6012314.story?track=rss

President Bush's call to build up the size of the Army and Marine Corps confronts the U.S. military with a sizable and potentially costly challenge, especially given its recent history of war-related recruiting problems. But one solution remains firmly off the table: reinstituting a draft.

Bush last week endorsed proposals to increase the size of the two services. The proposals have wide support, from those who advocate a short-term boost in the number of troops in Iraq as well as those who say a larger overall force will be needed even if troops are moved out of Iraq.

By boosting incentives and bonus money, adding recruiters and continuing to increase the military advertising budget, the Army should be able to sign up an additional 10,000 people a year within the current all-volunteer system, according to many military experts. But they add that such an increase would be costly. An additional 10,000 soldiers would cost at least an additional $1.2 billion annually.

"We've been at it for 30-plus years," said Theodore G. Stroup Jr., a retired lieutenant general and former head of the Army personnel system. "We do not want to go back to a draft."

Supporters of the volunteer force say it is of much higher quality than that of the draft era, which ended in 1973. But critics suggest the Army already has lowered its standards to meet current recruiting goals and would have to lower them even more to meet a larger goal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-25-06 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
1. The gut wrenching truth
Lower the criteria to meet minimum intelligence, physical, and age requirements. Watch the U.S. military slide into a fast decline. But at least the rich elitists won't have to go. Just those low-skilled, poor skilled, mentally challenged Americans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-25-06 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Rich Elitists (Like George W. Bush**) NEVER DID Have to Go
Even if you make them serve on paper, there will always be champagne units waiting for the sons of the rich and powerful, far out of harm's way.

We only have to look at the record of pResident George W. Bush**'s military "service" to see that.

There is no such thing as a fair draft. There never has been. There never will be. It is not possible for conscription to be fair.

Even looking at the issue of medical exemptions makes that clear. It is neither ethically nor militarily defensible to try to force the handicapped to perform military service they are physically unable to perform.
On the other hand, any medical exemption will be abused by the Rush Limbaughs of the world. As long as access to medical care is unequal, a draft compounds the injustice by making medical exemptions more available to those with more access to doctors.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-25-06 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Yep - check this little tidbit from article
Although wealthy ZIP codes have long been underrepresented in the armed forces, the numbers dropped further from 2004 to 2006, said Dancs, the group's research director.

"They are having a difficult time signing up recruits into the armed forces, and that does seem to be tied to the unpopularity of the Iraq war," she said. "Our data shows those with more options pursue other options."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-25-06 02:26 AM
Response to Original message
3. We DON'T Need to Expand the Military. We Need to END THE WAR

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-25-06 02:33 AM
Response to Original message
5. It will be interesting to see how they handle the draft
of our young women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-25-06 03:00 AM
Response to Original message
6. DOES ANYONE ELSE REMEMBER THIS..CHICAGO GANG GRAFFITTI
FOUND IN IRAQ??

i remember reading this and thought..ohhhh great..we are now sending gang members to iraq..lovely!!

fly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-25-06 04:02 AM
Response to Original message
7. I support the reinstatement of the draft
Everyone of those bush-kissing, war cheering little pricks that have been cheerin' scrubbie on and deriding people who opposed the war as cowards and unpatriotic should be puled from their cushy business schools, drafted into the military and sent over to Iraq.

They can tell us how much progress we're making if and when they return.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-25-06 05:15 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. No.
Find another way. You aren't going to endanger my children's lives just to get even with the republicans and the wealthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rpannier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-25-06 05:38 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Since I'm only referring to drafting the scrubbie enablers
your children are safe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-25-06 05:37 AM
Response to Original message
9. what's this country coming to when they'll let ANYONE kill . . . kill . . . kill . . .
see blood and gore and guts . . . veins in their teeth . . . eat dead burnt bodies . . . I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL . . .

(with apologies to Arlo) . . . :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-25-06 06:04 AM
Response to Original message
11. How about just funding the VA?
Or does our government rather our surviving cannon fodder just die, their usefulness over?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 04:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC