Not a laughing matter -- I think the window is still open

[CornField]

Anyone else still feeling that draft?

From our friends in Australia: http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2006/02/03-1026-3638.html

Like the US military, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) can't hire men and women fast enough to fulfil current military requirements. With Australian troops now engaged in two theatres of war, this is a serious problem. Being able to meet foreign and domestic security needs is fundamental to the maintenance of civil society – it's too important just to leave to the hawks to worry about.

Barrie told the Sea Power 2006 conference that Australia's aging population will intensify the problem and that, since in his view financial incentives don't seem to be working, conscription is the answer.

And, from Andrew Krepinevich (a retired career Army officer who now runs the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments who was quoted by the BBC as saying the US Army is "stretched to breaking point" and that US military is incapable of outlasting the insurgency): http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050901faessay84508/andrew-f-krepinevich-jr/how-to-win-in-iraq.html

Summary: Because they lack a coherent strategy, U.S. forces in Iraq have failed to defeat the insurgency or improve security. Winning will require a new approach to counterinsurgency, one that focuses on providing security to Iraqis rather than hunting down insurgents. And it will take at least a decade.

While it is advantageous for the Bush administration to maintain an all-volunteer armed force, time is not on their side. The insurgency, which has been in its last throws for a year or more, continues to take the lives of American soldiers. This forces more National Guard troops to be removed from security details in other parts of the world and placed in active combat in Iraq.

This also causes more grief for our military families as stop-loss continues to keep soldiers serving well beyond the scope of their original commitments.

Some look to those who wish to end this war with Iraq and refer to them as anti-American for voicing their views. The true anti-Americans are the ones who continue to grow their bank accounts at the expense of our fallen soldiers. Unfortunately, by the time our country wakes up to that fact, they might no longer be served by an all-volunteer force.

[dogday]

1. Unfortunately, it may take the draft

to shift the tides of this war... Once it actually affects everyone, they will start to yell out loud to end the war.

[1620rock]

3. Yep, thats what it took to end Vietnam. n/t

[Sammy Pepys]

2. There won't be a draft....

Bush admin/Congress would pull out of Iraq before instituting a draft.

[leftchick]

5. why do you think that?

The bushco** plan is for the US to maintain Military bases in Iraq and the Mideast forever. They can't do that and attack Iran and Syria without a draft.

[valerief]

9. * will need some really fancy weapons to

coerce the millions of young people who will refuse to be drafted. There will be more agin than for it, and it takes armed soldiers to coerce. Unless, of course, * has a fleet of Robocops.

[Sammy Pepys]

10. Drafts are....

1) Procedurally difficult - the Admin will have little say over the actual passage of a draft because it's a Congressional function, and they've only got about three years left as it is. And from the time you decide a draft is needed until the time it actually happens can take months, and from the time those drafted are trained you're looking at a year and a half to nearly two years. That's not counting any number of Congressional debates and hearings on the subject, which will asuredly push the timetable even further.

2) Generally inefficient - Unless you can convince a significant number of conscripts to stay on, they'll be released from service before they even get into the field with the training required for todays military.

3) Politically suicidal - The only draft legilsation that's recently been offered is mostly for the purposes of making political statements, not because DoD is actually looking for or wants a draft. Anyone serious about it would probably not find many allies and probably not find themselves in office much longer.

4) The military isn't designed solely around manpower anymore - BRAC and transformation are major steps away from huge force structures. We're not prepping to fight major conflicts ala WWII anymore. The new emphasis is on more mobile, specialized forces.

5) No one wants it anyway.

[CornField]

11. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you're incorrect

1) Procedurally difficult - the Admin will have little say over the actual passage of a draft because it's a Congressional function, and they've only got about three years left as it is. And from the time you decide a draft is needed until the time it actually happens can take months, and from the time those drafted are trained you're looking at a year and a half to nearly two years. That's not counting any number of Congressional debates and hearings on the subject, which will asuredly push the timetable even further.

The SSS plan for the 2004 fiscal year, outlined in Strategic Objective 1.2, reduced conscription time to 75 days. In March 2005, a report was issued by the Director of the SSS to the Pentagon that the system was ready to hold the first draft lottery within 75 days, rather than the usual 193 days.

Link to the SSS Performance Plan: http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

2) Generally inefficient - Unless you can convince a significant number of conscripts to stay on, they'll be released from service before they even get into the field with the training required for todays military.

You assume the military would only be interested in drafting combat troops.

“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 a Feb. 11, 2003 proposal presented to senior Pentagon officials. (The Skilled Draft Proposal, originally reported by Eric Rosenburg of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer)

3) Politically suicidal - The only draft legilsation that's recently been offered is mostly for the purposes of making political statements, not because DoD is actually looking for or wants a draft. Anyone serious about it would probably not find many allies and probably not find themselves in office much longer.

Perhaps. I guess that one really remains to be seen. In the fall of 2003, according to Family Circle magazine, Rove polled Republican members of Congress on how they felt about the draft. The Congressional leaders said they would support the president.

4) The military isn't designed solely around manpower anymore - BRAC and transformation are major steps away from huge force structures. We're not prepping to fight major conflicts ala WWII anymore. The new emphasis is on more mobile, specialized forces.

I'd point you back to the Skilled Draft Proposal.

5) No one wants it anyway.

Well, I can't argue much with that one. At least no one I know wants a draft.

[Sammy Pepys]

12. I'm extremely confident in my assessment.....

...but I thank you for the counterpoints.

1) I was not referring to lottery timetables, but legislation passage and training timetables. Lottery timetables only indicate the amount of time from lottery to presentation of those eligible to serve. It does not include anything else.

2) That the military does not just want combat troops is precisely the issue. The training for the sort of areas the military requires is more extensive than what a conscripted service requirement can provide. On top of that, while SSS is to be commended for focusing on skilled individuals for service, it does not detract from the problem of a training a volunteer force versus a professional, voluntary one, on top of the problem that most folks within that ge group possessing such skills will probably be able to defer conscription in some way (school, mostly).

3) There's little doubt about how politically fatal a draft would be. Ask anyone in DoD or Congress.

4) I think you miss my point that Transformation does not address manpower in the same way the SSS addresses manpower. SSS serves a different manpower role than what the goals of Trans are. Trans is concerned with flexibility and mobility, and does encourage a highly-trained military. Regardless of a skill-centric SSS policy, that's not what SSS is primarily concerned with.

[leftchick]

13. excellent reply CF

anyone that does not recognize what is coming... is well....

[Sammy Pepys]

14. ...is what?

I'd really like to know....

[dogday]

8. His SOTU speech implied we would be fighting for a long

time. Taking about how we are the police of the world. Doesn't sound like he wants to stop the war...

[Arkansas Granny]

4. If the United State continues to send troops to Iraq, and especially

if Bush invades another country, I think the draft will be inevitable. I don't see any other way to keep the troop levels that would be necessary to carry on Bush's ill fated "War on Terror". I don't think there will be any serious talk about it before the 2006 elections, however, as it would be a death knell for the Republicans.

[LittleClarkie]

6. And I'm sick of the attitude

"Oh well, those National Guard soldiers had it so easy for so long, it's about time they did something. They should stop crying about alittle extra time in."

Like they're second class soldiers or something. I've even seen the attitude when it comes to their health benefits once they get back. "How dare they take up the spots that should be for REAL soldiers like those in active duty in the Army."

If you serve the same, and take the same risks, you should get the same benefits.

[valerief]

7. We are at war with Eastasia

We have always been at war with Eastasia.--George Oilwell