• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Government looking at military draft lists

GrGr

Diamond Member
Government looking at military draft lists

By ALMA WALZER
The Monitor
The Brownsville Herald

McALLEN, November 15, 2004 ? It?s taken one year, seven months and 19 days of combat in Iraq for the Lone Star State to lose 100 of its own.

Texas is the second state, after California, to lose 100 service members, according to The Associated Press.

With continuing war in Iraq and U.S. armed forces dispersed to so many other locations around the globe, Americans may be wondering if compulsory military service could begin again for the first time since the Vietnam War era.

The Selective Service System (SSS) and the U.S. Department of Education now are gearing up to compare their computer records, to make sure all men between the ages of 18 and 25 who are required to register for a military draft have done so.

The SSS and the education department will begin comparing their lists on Jan. 1, 2005, according to a memo authored by Jack Martin, acting Selective Service director.

While similar record checks have been done periodically for the past 10 years, Martin?s memo is dated Oct. 28, just a few days before the Nov. 2 presidential election, a hard-fought campaign in which the question of whether the nation might need to reinstate a military draft was raised in debates and on the stump.

It took several more days, until Nov. 4, for the document to reach the Federal Register, the official daily publication for rules and notices of federal agencies and organizations.

The memo was also produced after the U.S. House voted 402-2 on Oct. 5, against House Resolution 163, a bill that would have required all young people, including women, to serve two years of military service.

Under federal law, a military draft cannot be started without congressional support.

About 94 percent of all men are properly registered for a draft, according to Richard Flahavan, associate director of the office of public and intergovernmental affairs for SSS.

Martin?s memo is just a routine thing, Flahavan said.

?Back in 1982 a federal law was passed that basically linked federal grants, student loans and federal assistance to students with Selective Service,? Flahavan said. ?You had to register with Selective Service with a Social Security number (in order to receive federal assistance), and as a consequence of the law the Department of Education came up with an agreement on how to exchange and compare data to comply with the law.

?It just so happens that the current agreement in effect expires next month,? Flahavan said. ?All we did is update the agreement slightly, but it has no substantive changes. There is nothing new or shocking to link this to some type of draft right around the corner because its all been in place for almost 18 years.?

Flahavan said the written agreements between SSS and the Department of Education normally run for about four or five years and suggested that a reporter search the 1999 or 2000 records of the Federal Register for the most agreement.

A search of the Federal Register by The Monitor found four such agreements between the two agencies, with effective dates as follows: Jan. 1, 1995; July 1, 1997; Jan. 1, 2000; and July 1, 2002.

All four agreements lasted for 18 months, during which time the SSS and the Department of Education could complete their comparisons.

The most recent agreement, which began July 1, 2002, actually expired Jan. 1, 2004, according to federal records located by The Monitor.

?This has nothing to with current events,? Flahavan said. ?This is just the periodic renewal of previous agreements ? this one is 18 months but normally it runs four years and that?s why we?re doing it now. I?m not quite sure why it?s 18 months versus the normal number of years.?

Flahavan said the agency was required to place the agreement in the Federal Register.

?That?s fine and we did,? Flahavan said. ?We believe the public wouldn?t stand for a draft that isn?t fair and equitable.

?And the only way to be fair and equitable is if everyone who should register is registered, because that?s the pool from which the people who would be drafted would be selected from. So you want everyone who should be in the pot in the pot,? Flahavan said.

U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, who officially begins representing western Hidalgo County residents in January, said Congress has voted on record against a draft.

?It was a near unanimous vote in the House,? Doggett said. ?When things are filed in the Federal Register, there will be standards, and they are a reminder that if we cannot get more international participation that the risk of a draft remains out there.

?And I think we do need people to remain watchful of this possibility.?

Doggett said one type of ?draft? was already being used by the military.

?I?m concerned that a very real form of the draft is there now for those already in the service,? Doggett said. ?People are being forced to stay in beyond their commitment, and that?s an indication of being overextended.

?I want us to pursue policies that don?t overextend us and involve more international participation, so that Americans don?t have to do all the dying and endure all the pain for these international activities,? Doggett said.

Flahavan said the computer records check would help Selective Service with its compliance rates.

?From 1999 to 2000, it was dropping about a percent a year,? Flahavan said. ?It?s now inching back up about a percent a year. Last year it was 93 percent.

?At the end of 2004 we anticipate about a 94 percent compliance rate,? Flahavan said. ?We?re pleased we?ve got it back on the rise and that?s where we want to keep it ? that?s our goal.?

Draft Gear Up?
Who Has To Register?
All male U.S. citizens and male aliens living in the U.S. between the ages of 18 and 25
Dual nationals of the U.S. and another country, regardless of where they live
Young men who are in prison or mental institutions do not have to regsiter while they are committed, but must do so if they are released and not reached age 26
Disabled men who live at home and can move about indiependently.
Myths
Contrary to popular belief, only sons and the last son to carry a family name must register and they can be drafted.
What Happens In A Draft
Congress would likely approve a military draft in a time of crisis, in which the mission requires more troops than are in the volunteer military.
Selective Service procedures would treat married men or those with children the same as single men.
The first men to be called up will be those whose 20th birthday falls during that year, followed by those age 21, 22, 23,24 and 25.
The last men to be called are 18 and 19 years of age.
Historical Facts
The last man to be drafted was in June 1973.
Number of Drafted for WWI : 2.8 million
Number of Drafted for WWII: 10 million
Number of Drafted for the Korean War: 1.5 million
Number of Drafted for the Vietnam War: 1.8 million
Source: Selective Service System
 
some delusional individuals around here think that because a bill was killed before the election that it won't be revived. I myself believe it has to if Bush is gonna start more wars. Thank god I'm to old
 
Well since it looks like the neocons will make a clean sweep in the new Bush administration who knows what will happen.
 
Originally posted by: rickn
some delusional individuals around here think that because a bill was killed before the election that it won't be revived. I myself believe it has to if Bush is gonna start more wars. Thank god I'm to old

Just remember our military was over 2x its current size without a draft.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: rickn
some delusional individuals around here think that because a bill was killed before the election that it won't be revived. I myself believe it has to if Bush is gonna start more wars. Thank god I'm to old

Just remember our military was over 2x its current size without a draft.

When was that and was there a war on?
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: rickn
some delusional individuals around here think that because a bill was killed before the election that it won't be revived. I myself believe it has to if Bush is gonna start more wars. Thank god I'm to old

Just remember our military was over 2x its current size without a draft.

When was that and was there a war on?

Beginning of the 90s and no.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: rickn
some delusional individuals around here think that because a bill was killed before the election that it won't be revived. I myself believe it has to if Bush is gonna start more wars. Thank god I'm to old

Just remember our military was over 2x its current size without a draft.

When was that and was there a war on?

Beginning of the 90s and no.
I'm gonna need a link...
 
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: rickn
some delusional individuals around here think that because a bill was killed before the election that it won't be revived. I myself believe it has to if Bush is gonna start more wars. Thank god I'm to old

Just remember our military was over 2x its current size without a draft.

When was that and was there a war on?

Beginning of the 90s and no.
I'm gonna need a link...

Looking for links now.

But we had 18 army divisions in 1990, today we ahve 10.
The navy had 500 ships in 1990, today 300.

 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: rickn
some delusional individuals around here think that because a bill was killed before the election that it won't be revived. I myself believe it has to if Bush is gonna start more wars. Thank god I'm to old

Just remember our military was over 2x its current size without a draft.

When was that and was there a war on?

Beginning of the 90s and no.
I'm gonna need a link...

Looking for links now.

But we had 18 army divisions in 1990, today we ahve 10.
The navy had 500 ships in 1990, today 300.


linkage

The Army consists of four corps and 18 divisions. In the active Army, there are ten divisions: two forward deployed in Europe, one in Korea, one in Hawaii, and six in the continental United States. The remaining eight are Army National Guard Divisions. The U.S. Army had 28 Divisions ? 18 active and 10 National Guard -- in 1991.
 
some delusional individuals around here think that because a bill was killed before the election that it won't be revived. I myself believe it has to if Bush is gonna start more wars. Thank god I'm to old

Let sum you up....

PVSSY!!!

Everyone in this country wants something for nothing. It is time to pay the piper.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: rickn
some delusional individuals around here think that because a bill was killed before the election that it won't be revived. I myself believe it has to if Bush is gonna start more wars. Thank god I'm to old

Just remember our military was over 2x its current size without a draft.

When was that and was there a war on?

Beginning of the 90s and no.
I'm gonna need a link...

Looking for links now.

But we had 18 army divisions in 1990, today we ahve 10.
The navy had 500 ships in 1990, today 300.
Found something at census.gov - Link. Go to page 11.

Army manpower (in thousands)
1987 - 2169 total, 781 active
1988 - 2174, 772
1989 - 2130, 770
1990 - 2044, 732
1991 - 1986, 711
1992 - 1807, 610
1993 - 1705, 572

 
Originally posted by: DainBrammage
some delusional individuals around here think that because a bill was killed before the election that it won't be revived. I myself believe it has to if Bush is gonna start more wars. Thank god I'm to old

Let sum you up....

PVSSY!!!

Everyone in this country wants something for nothing. It is time to pay the piper.

uh huh. I see you have the time to post from your laz-y-boy. Why don't you walk the walk and haul your ass to Iraq, Boy
 
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: rickn
some delusional individuals around here think that because a bill was killed before the election that it won't be revived. I myself believe it has to if Bush is gonna start more wars. Thank god I'm to old

Just remember our military was over 2x its current size without a draft.

When was that and was there a war on?

Beginning of the 90s and no.
I'm gonna need a link...

Looking for links now.

But we had 18 army divisions in 1990, today we ahve 10.
The navy had 500 ships in 1990, today 300.
Found something at census.gov - Link. Go to page 11.

Army manpower (in thousands)
1987 - 2169 total, 781 active
1988 - 2174, 772
1989 - 2130, 770
1990 - 2044, 732
1991 - 1986, 711
1992 - 1807, 610
1993 - 1705, 572



That downward trend continued through most of the 90s.
 
Those are interesting stats and good for the military. Though I've heard that they haven't been meeting their requirements lately so I'm not sure how that works out. Also, you have to wonder if people will be as willing to enlist when there's a war on in Iraq (at least in the Army and Marines).
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Army manpower (in thousands)
1987 - 2169 total, 781 active
1988 - 2174, 772
1989 - 2130, 770
1990 - 2044, 732
1991 - 1986, 711
1992 - 1807, 610
1993 - 1705, 572
That downward trend continued through most of the 90s.
Where did they go?

And how did the army get those numbers in the past? ...And how can such numbers be met today?

 
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: charrison
Army manpower (in thousands)
1987 - 2169 total, 781 active
1988 - 2174, 772
1989 - 2130, 770
1990 - 2044, 732
1991 - 1986, 711
1992 - 1807, 610
1993 - 1705, 572
That downward trend continued through most of the 90s.
Where did they go?

And how did the army get those numbers in the past? ...And how can such numbers be met today?

It's the end of the cold war when those numbers came down.... Everyone agreed to cut some stuff after the cold war. I would be curious to know if they can get up those numbers today when there's an active war going on... Not that they would need to get THAT high...

EDIT: Also, people on P&N were claiming the Army was not meeting its requirements recently. It'd be interesting to see some links from their side.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Army manpower (in thousands)
1987 - 2169 total, 781 active
1988 - 2174, 772
1989 - 2130, 770
1990 - 2044, 732
1991 - 1986, 711
1992 - 1807, 610
1993 - 1705, 572
From Here

Army manpower (in thousands)
2004 - 1035 total, 480 active

Active Army forces were about 60% larger at the high point (not quite double) but if you were talking about total manpower, then it looks like your numbers hold :wine:
 
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: charrison
Army manpower (in thousands)
1987 - 2169 total, 781 active
1988 - 2174, 772
1989 - 2130, 770
1990 - 2044, 732
1991 - 1986, 711
1992 - 1807, 610
1993 - 1705, 572
That downward trend continued through most of the 90s.
Where did they go?

And how did the army get those numbers in the past? ...And how can such numbers be met today?

Defense cuts after the cold war.

Recruiting. All congress has to do is raise the number of bodies that armed forces is allowed to have, and they can get them. John Kerry wanted to raise the size of the military by 40,000, but no one accused him of starting to a draft to get them.


 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: charrison
Army manpower (in thousands)
1987 - 2169 total, 781 active
1988 - 2174, 772
1989 - 2130, 770
1990 - 2044, 732
1991 - 1986, 711
1992 - 1807, 610
1993 - 1705, 572
That downward trend continued through most of the 90s.
Where did they go?

And how did the army get those numbers in the past? ...And how can such numbers be met today?

It's the end of the cold war when those numbers came down.... Everyone agreed to cut some stuff after the cold war. I would be curious to know if they can get up those numbers today when there's an active war going on... Not that they would need to get THAT high...

EDIT: Also, people on P&N were claiming the Army was not meeting its requirements recently. It'd be interesting to see some links from their side.
The Army's meeting most of its recruitment and retention goals but the big one in the news was that the National Guard didn't meet its goals in the last fiscal year. The goal was 350,000 and they ended up short by 8,000. A big reason for the shortage was that active duty soldiers whose time was up weren't transitioning to the Guard or reserves in the numbers they had shot for; More than expected stayed active but the shortage was due, in larger part, to those who cut out altogether. Both of those reasons, of course, stem from the Guard's more full time role these days.

This is all OTOH, of course, but I can find a link if anyone wants it...
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: DainBrammage

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
some delusional individuals around here think that because a bill was killed before the election that it won't be revived. I myself believe it has to if Bush is gonna start more wars. Thank god I'm to old
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Let sum you up....

PVSSY!!!

Everyone in this country wants something for nothing. It is time to pay the piper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



uh huh. I see you have the time to post from your laz-y-boy. Why don't you walk the walk and haul your ass to Iraq, Boy

FYI panty waste. I served in the US Marines for 12 plus years. I will gladly go to Iraq or wherever my country asks me to go. I have walked the walk and talked the talk.
 
Ok shall i put some light on the situation.....

Prior to useing the draft the US military will use come out with a full Stop Loss and Stop Move.
So that you can understand, this means that everyone in the military freezes. You are not allowed to get out, retire etc...Military members are kept at what ever location they at at until new orders are issued.
They will fully activate the Inactive reserve elements. Yes, this is totally different, inactive reserves are those who have already served in the military, got out but are still under contract for an additional amount of time. Then we willl use all of our reserve elements. Yes we have used a large portion but there are still plenty more.

The draft is a dead issue...........
 
Originally posted by: DainBrammage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: DainBrammage

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
some delusional individuals around here think that because a bill was killed before the election that it won't be revived. I myself believe it has to if Bush is gonna start more wars. Thank god I'm to old
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Let sum you up....

PVSSY!!!

Everyone in this country wants something for nothing. It is time to pay the piper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



uh huh. I see you have the time to post from your laz-y-boy. Why don't you walk the walk and haul your ass to Iraq, Boy

FYI panty waste. I served in the US Marines for 12 plus years. I will gladly go to Iraq or wherever my country asks me to go. I have walked the walk and talked the talk.




FYI, the term is "Panty Waist".

I don't really think you learned much in your 12 years in the Corps, judging by the fact that you troll around here calling people "pvssy". Move on, little man.



:cookie:
 
Originally posted by: GrGr
Well since it looks like the neocons will make a clean sweep in the new Bush administration who knows what will happen.
You could at least read your own crap before you post it.
?Back in 1982 a federal law was passed that basically linked federal grants, student loans and federal assistance to students with Selective Service,? Flahavan said. ?You had to register with Selective Service with a Social Security number (in order to receive federal assistance), and as a consequence of the law the Department of Education came up with an agreement on how to exchange and compare data to comply with the law.

?It just so happens that the current agreement in effect expires next month,? Flahavan said. ?All we did is update the agreement slightly, but it has no substantive changes. There is nothing new or shocking to link this to some type of draft right around the corner because its all been in place for almost 18 years.?
 
Back
Top