Ellsberg:"If Bush is re-elected, it is likely he will reinstate the draft"

[Dems Will Win]

Talking draft in light of Iraq occupation

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/11122003/news/60246.htm

Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame believes Bush will re-instate draft in 2005!!!

[mikehiggins]

1. Absolutely no doubt

that the draft will be back. If Bush is reelected and intends to garrison troops in Iraq, as well as straighten out those pesky arabs in Syria and Libya, he'll need a draft to raise the manpower levels (aka, cannon fodder) to do it.

On the other hand, maybe he'll put off Star Wars research to pay for the bigger military?

Nah, he'll probably just shut down Social Security.

[MoonRiver]

2. Sorry, but * was NOT elected. SCOTUS selected his sorry arse.

We need to undo a coup, that's all.

ON EDIT:

Yeah, the bottom feeder will certainly re-institute the draft. After all, he and his neocon pals need lots of cheap cannon fodder/labor to support the neverending war on terra for Halliburton. :mad:

[alfredo]

3. I think this is an issue we need tokeep on the front

burner. We need Bush to answer yes or no on the draft.

[Dems Will Win]

5. Bush has already said to ready the draft for 2005 in private and

allocated the extra $28 million to do it. In public they say "no plans".

And in Rumsfeld's memo he says:

"My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves."

From the guy who wrote the PNAC plan himself that can only mean re-instating the draft and taking out Syria and Iran and poring thousands more troops into Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia.

[Kahuna]

9. Won't matter that he lies if he is a lame duck..

If he gets another term he will be even more hideous than he is now.

[UTUSN]

4. Well, at Least It Will Unite Us n/t

[Demobrat]

6. I've believed it since Osama morphed

into Saddam.

[Kahuna]

7. You bet he is. The dems were on CSPAN tonight..

saying morale and retention is bad. They will have no choice.

[JackSwift]

8. They cannot sustain Iraq

(not to mention Afghanistan revisited) and people aren't enlisting and they are cutting pay and benis, they will need slave labor for fighting and dying.

Bet on it.

[maggrwaggr]

10. spread this message far and wide!

this, if anything, will guarantee a Bush defeat.

[proud patriot]

11. bush 04 = the draft

I put it on my car .

[Dems Will Win]

12. LOOK AT THIS!

http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

[sventvkg]

13. IF it happens you all BETTER spread DO NOT GO! to the kids

Do not let any kids die for the PNAC agenda..I can tell you I will be out there protesting, facing off with Riot Gear Cops..How many of you will be? Having Served and in a unit where you REALLY had to want to be there to even make it, I can't even imagine a Non-volunteer Military...I can not see how people who blatently dont' want to be there, would be an effective fighting force in the least bit..I dont see it...I will not stand for a draft though...I will fight.

[Dems Will Win]

14. PNAC tells Bush to get more troops, once the Marines and Coast

Guard are used up in 2004, they will start the draftr in 2005.
From PNAC site:

<snip>

Secretary Rumsfeld's response is that we need to turn things over to the Iraqis as soon as possible. Sounds fine in theory or even over the long run. Yet there is no way to train a large, effective and loyal Iraqi force in the time frame required. Despite this reality, the secretary resists any idea that more U.S. troops are needed.

In doing so, Secretary Rumsfeld puts the president's policy of building a decent and democratic Iraq at risk. At the moment, there are only three alternatives: one, we don't add troops and risk not being able both to provide security in Iraq and conduct the kind of counterinsurgency operations required to root out our adversaries; two, we add even more foreign troops only after giving over Iraq's management to the UN, thereby inviting the dysfunction of the UN into the process of rebuilding Iraq; or three, we augment the size of U.S. forces there, increasing even more the overall burden on the American military. Unattractive as this last alternative might be, it is the only dependable way to secure the president's vision for Iraq.

Nor is it impossible. The recent Congressional Budget Office study, which was widely reported as suggesting that we cannot sustain American troop levels in Iraq for much longer without breaking the Army, also makes it clear that it would be possible in the months ahead to add forces if we were willing to call on combat elements from the Marines, the National Guard and Special Forces equivalents. To be sure, this would be a difficult decision for the Pentagon and the White House to make and would call into question previous judgments by the administration about the proper size of the American military.

But the reality remains that, while the situation in Iraq is not as dire as many of the president's most fearsome critics suggest, we do face a serious security problem there. With a sound strategy and adequate resources, it can be addressed. However, it can't be if we pretend the problem doesn't exist or ask others to carry out tasks that only the U.S. and its allies can reliably accomplish.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20030905.htm