Bush adviser: Military draft worth considering

[Kadarin]

IMO the draft should be used in times of national emergency. Now is not a time of national emergency, so I think the draft would be a bad idea to implement now.

My guess is that Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute's job right now is to bring up the idea, in order to make it sound like it's not coming from the president.

 

[StageLeft]

We've been hearing the same thing for years, it's not news.

 

[Blain]

What's being done on the financial front in the War On Terror?
Are other countries and their companies comfortable with agencies sniffing around in their business?

Money makes the world go round.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think people on the left are making too much out of this.

The guy said ?it makes sense to certainly consider it? that is a FAR cry from ?yes, we should have a draft.?

The military makes plans and considers everything. How many times do you hear a member of the military brass answer a question ?no, that is something we won?t do? verse ?that is something we will have to look into??

Do you think someone in the administration could have brought up the draft to National Public Radio of all places a year ago and still remained working for the president?

Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday.

"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."

Lute isn't saying we need a draft, nor is he contradicting Bush. He clearly says so in the interview. It DOES make sense to consider the draft from a practical POV and I agree with his thinking. He says it's something to think about and gives rational reasons. I don't think it's desirable or necessary, but if I were in his shoes thinking about the troops I wouldn't disregard it. I wouldn't read too much into this.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
We've been hearing the same thing for years, it's not news.

If it's a slow news day and you are a liberal media source, it sure is :laugh:

The only attempts to reinstate the draft have been from liberals. Just FYI.

 

[Lemon law]

Jhhnn somewhat hits the nail on the head with the following---The biggest problem with a large standing military is that sooner or later some damned fools will try to use it as something other than for what it was intended, which is a deterrent against military aggression...

But also misses the following point. Namely that we are somehow changing the goal of the military from a force that fights foreign nations into a police force that fights foreign terrorists. Were it a matter that we were stopping foreign aggression at or inside of our borders, it would create no international problems. But as we may note, it does create conflicts with our own constitution and personnel liberties.

But it does create huge international problems when we assert the right to invade a country to prevent a set of terrorists from attacking us in the future. Because then it just takes one psychopath in any given country to justify that attack. Then we must invade that country, subdue its military, and then acts as its government and police force. Even though the rest of the country is not rotten and 99.9999% of the population would never dream of ever attacking us or using terrorism. And because terrorism is a tactic and an idea, our risk is always that our brutality will create more angry people prepared to use terrorism than we can possibly kill.

Even if justified, it would take a very special kind of military training to pull such a mission off without being counterproductive. And the use of the kind of intimidation palehorse74 advocates, is an exact prescription on how to screw up the mission and create hostility in the very population that must willingly co-operate.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
let's make one thing perfectly clear...Nixon did not start the Vietnam War (JFK(D) and Johnson(D) did), Nixon was elected to office pledging to reduce our troop levels in Southeast Asia, and to end the conflict with "honor". Every year Nixon was President, the troop levels in Vietnam were reduced. Nixon did not "continue" the Vietnam War, he ended it.

Wow nice revisionist history, as always you never fail to deliver "the facts".

Nixon escalated the war in Vietnam by bombing and inserting troops into Cambodia which was a large step backwards in getting a lasting peace. This allowed the Khmer Rouge to gain popularity there and go on a rampage killing a lot of innocent people. Yes he and by association we are guilty for that genocide.

Basically Nixon prolonged the war nearly another 5 years as far as America was concerned, if we withdrew immediately when he took office the results the end result would have been the same and lots of Americans died in the interim while he and Kissinger played games.

I don't blame him for all of the failures of Vietnam but he purposefully deceived the public. Were it not for Watergate he would have continued to use American airpower and hundreds of millions of dollars supporting the South basically ad infinitum, that's not exactly "ending" the war.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Skoorb
We've been hearing the same thing for years, it's not news.

If it's a slow news day and you are a liberal media source, it sure is :laugh:

The only attempts to reinstate the draft have been from liberals. Just FYI.

Didn't you read the thread title?

Bush wants a draft!

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think people on the left are making too much out of this.

The guy said ?it makes sense to certainly consider it? that is a FAR cry from ?yes, we should have a draft.?

The military makes plans and considers everything. How many times do you hear a member of the military brass answer a question ?no, that is something we won?t do? verse ?that is something we will have to look into??

Do you think someone in the administration could have brought up the draft to National Public Radio of all places a year ago and still remained working for the president?

Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday.

"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."

Lute isn't saying we need a draft, nor is he contradicting Bush. He clearly says so in the interview. It DOES make sense to consider the draft from a practical POV and I agree with his thinking. He says it's something to think about and gives rational reasons. I don't think it's desirable or necessary, but if I were in his shoes thinking about the troops I wouldn't disregard it. I wouldn't read too much into this.

It's called political double talk, in order to require a draft the all volunteer force has to be deemed inadequate for the job at hand, and all these years we have been hearing the following.

The president's position is that the all volunteer military meets the needs of the country and there is no discussion of a draft.

So why is he discussing it and relating it to the following?

Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft

The reason Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute is giving is frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan meaning the all-volunteer force is not meeting or soon will not meet the needs of the country.

Maybe reality is starting to hit and they need to say what they don't want to say which is the Donald Rumsfield strategy of light and cheap as opposed to General Shinseki's of going in heavy was wrong and we all know what happened to the general.

Shinseki is famous for his remarks to the U.S. Senate Armed Services committee before the war in Iraq in which he said "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for post-war Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz publicly disagreed with his estimate.

When the insurgency took hold in post-war Iraq, Shinseki's comments and their public rejection by the civilian leadership were often cited by those who felt the Bush administration deployed too few troops to Iraq. On November 15, 2006, in testimony before Congress, CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid said that General Shinseki's estimate had proved correct.

If President Bush asked for he most likely would have gotten his several hundred thousand troops with the approval of the American people in the beginning of the war.

Now they are stuck between a rock and a hard place do to the mentality of people like Donald Rumsfield who's thinking can be summed up in one of his following quotes.

"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."

Looks to me like this is the later time and somebody is wishing for a bigger army but don't know how to come out and say it without losing face.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Unless you're claiming that the Bush Admin is also a bunch of political pansies, too...

well, I never said otherwise...

What would you suggest? Flights of 52's carpet bombing Sadr City? Declare the whole place a free-fire zone? Reducing all of iraq to rubble, marching the population off to death camps? Salting the fields, ala Rome's treatment of Carthage?

That's a good start... well, everything short of the death camps and salting the fields. Allowing us to close with and destroy the enemy, properly, is all I ask.

It took 30 years for the public to forget the lessons of Viet Nam, ones the Neocons never did learn, and for the same bitter bullsh!t sentiment to emerge among the warmongers-

"We Coulda Won except for the Pansies!"

well, the panzies DID tie the hands of the military.. completely. Who knows what would have happened had the politicans stayed the fvck out of the way..?!

America doesn't have the stomach or the lack of morality to win on the terms required, something that was obvious before the most excellent neocon adventure in Iraq...

too true.. and too bad.

Oh boo hoo. The needs of the military to "complete the mission" are not, and should not be the primary factors to consider when making decisions like this. Whether you like them or not, the limitations placed on the armed forces are there for a good reason. Mass slaughter of civilians just isn't what it used to be and all that... Just like everyone else, you have to play by the rules.

 

[Kur]

While I am not against the draft and serving our country, I am against a draft for Iraq. I don't feel like dying for oil, sorry not on my to-die for list.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Lemon Law-

But also misses the following point. Namely that we are somehow changing the goal of the military from a force that fights foreign nations into a police force that fights foreign terrorists.

Which has zero relation to our current difficulties in Iraq, seeing as how that's not the reason we invaded, yet somehow becomes the justification for staying...

Again, we simply don't have the troop strength to act in such a capacity in a nation as populous as Iraq, quite by design. Nor do we have the requisite language skills or plan of action acceptable to the population at large in Iraq- otherwise, they wouldn't tolerate or condone resistance against us...

This is all really simple stuff, stuff that Rumsfeld and Powell both should have known going in- but they didn't, being blinded by ideology and the old team spirit...

 

[Lemon law]

But its still all good for GWB---he gets to be the hero who tells his generals no they can't have a draft---thereby evading anyone noticing GWB was the idiot who made the draft a necessity in the first place.

 

[bsobel]

If the war were justified, there'd be no need for a draft.

Not making a comment about this war, but are you actually saying the draft wasn't needed in WW2?

 

[Lemon law]

A number of my family members did fight in ww2. They did so reluctantly but proudly. And we did not lack for voluntary enlistees when our country was justified in ww2. Those same family members were far more divided come Vietnam. And many of their comments were driven by those who had voluntarily enlisted for Vietnam and became rapidly disillusioned about what was clearly a phony war. That Vietnam process took some four years to reach critical mass in a draft situation and evidently takes longer with a
non-draft situation. But I still figure the anti-war sentiment will reach critical mass before the election of 11/08. But again, look for Iraq war vets to drown out the minority voices of palehorse74 and fellow sadists.

 

[trenchfoot]

re-instituting the draft will get us enough troops to turn the tide in iraq.

as i've stated in other threads, the bushies don't want that to happen. their biggest nightmare is that we leave iraq in such a way that leaves the iraqi's completely whole and independent from our influence. the bushies have learned a very good lesson in our earlier exploitation of iran and also fervently want to re-acquire the control they lost over there.

the losses presently being incurred in iraq in money and lives is acceptable to the present adiminstration's needs. otherwise, they certainly would have done something about it by now.

they've managed to keep the cracks in the dam plugged so far and are feverishly shoring up those cracks with the typical lies, deception, misinformation and propaganda they used to get us to invade iraq in the first place.

 

[Summitdrinker]

well little miss lead Hillary, sent bush jr a letter today, asking about a possible draft?

she stated in the letter she is against a draft
?????well???????????????

ya she is a real leader alright to wimpy to do want needs to be done
all she is thinking about is getting elected

we need a real man to be pres next, not her
putting her in office will be more of the same of what we have now:thumbsdown:

 

[imported_Lothar]

I would rather go to jail and leech of government than to fight and die for a war I don't believe in.

 

[Summitdrinker]

ok, how about the afghan war front? same thing?

 

[soundforbjt]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Charley would have let you finish high school, of course.

Lemme get this straight...you graduate H.S on time, you get drafted...
you screw around, need to repeat grades, don't graduate on time, your not drafted???
Does this seem a litttle odd (think about it a while).

also...

Nixon understood one thing politically. He would be allowed to continue the Vietnam war by buying off the parents of the middle and lower classes by getting rid of the draft. And its somewhat the back handed point Rangel is making.

let's make one thing perfectly clear...Nixon did not start the Vietnam War (JFK(D) and Johnson(D) did), Nixon was elected to office pledging to reduce our troop levels in Southeast Asia, and to end the conflict with "honor". Every year Nixon was President, the troop levels in Vietnam were reduced. Nixon did not "continue" the Vietnam War, he ended it.

Technically, Ike started it ( the Vietnam War )by sending the first U.S. military advisors.

 

[Lemon law]

Technically, Ike started it ( the Vietnam War )by sending the first U.S. military advisors. ---is the new? contention on this thread.

Technically China started it in 2000 BC or so by trying to eat Vietnam. Ike just started rerun number 64 of the long tired series with the same old outcome. And once again Vietnam rose to the occasion and threw the hated foreign devil out. We should somewhat rejoice because Vietnam harbors no lasting hard feelings.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Summitdrinker
ok, how about the afghan war front? same thing?

AFAIK, you can't choose where you want to go, or which war you want to fight.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Summitdrinker
ok, how about the afghan war front? same thing?

Problem is dude.. we made Afghanistan worse than it was before..

Nobody should fight for Neocons.. no matter what their cause


Neocons and their adult children should be the very first people drafted.. but they are the War Pigs who send YOUR children off to die

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Summitdrinker
ok, how about the afghan war front? same thing?

AFAIK, you can't choose where you want to go, or which war you want to fight.

Of course you can choose Lothar. And more importantly we always retain the ability to choose to be stupid or smart. Why do we always seem to choose dumb? Of course our enemies have the same choice and seem to alway choose dumb also.

And we know dumb plus dumb equals dumber. Or lose lose.

Why don't we ever try to see if they dumb plus us smarter equals we win? Which can be a win win.

Rather than they dumb plus we mightier equals a lose lose that resolves nothing.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Summitdrinker
ok, how about the afghan war front? same thing?

AFAIK, you can't choose where you want to go, or which war you want to fight.

Of course you can choose Lothar. And more importantly we always retain the ability to choose to be stupid or smart. Why do we always seem to choose dumb? Of course our enemies have the same choice and seem to alway choose dumb also.

And we know dumb plus dumb equals dumber. Or lose lose.

Why don't we ever try to see if they dumb plus us smarter equals we win? Which can be a win win.

Rather than they dumb plus we mightier equals a lose lose that resolves nothing.

Are you saying if I were to join the Army/Marines right now and tell them I want to be placed in Afghanistan and not Iraq, I will be placed there?
What if I chose Kosovo, Germany, Japan, or the South Korean border? Will I be placed anywhere I wish? I *seriously* doubt that.