The military draft issue isn't going away. There's a story in the Washington Post today about how concerns about the military draft are still on the rise. The article mostly focuses on how some people are preparing to claim concientious objector status. But there's an informative conclusion to the piece that spells out a concern we brought to light during the 2004 election campaign---a special skills draft.
That's a draft for the people who are in the shortest supply in the military---particular kinds of doctors, engineers, etc. Its already happening within the ranks of the national guard as well as retired military personnel, many of whom have been brought back into active duty because of their particular area of expertise.
Here's the excerpt:
There's not going to be a draft. Political leaders can't seem to say that enough. But if there were to be one, it could be of specific skilled professionals rather than general conscription, Flahavan said. That could mean women would be included -- and the cutoff age could be extended past 25 years.
Since 1987, at Congress's request, the Selective Service has had a plan to register male and female health care workers ages 20 to 45 in more than 60 medical specialties in case the country suddenly needed more doctors or nurses. The proposal would require the authorization of Congress and the president.
More recently, the agency has talked about reinventing itself by registering all sorts of professionals whose expertise could be helpful in an emergency. That way, the Selective Service could become a national "repository or inventory of special skills," according to the agency's annual report.
The "special skills" draft could give the government the option of calling up people in a variety of specialties, such as linguists, computer experts, police officers or firefighters, Flahavan said.
Other government agencies besides the Department of Defense could draft those workers, the report states. They could include U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The agency knows what angst such a program could cause, and Flahavan repeatedly stresses that it is "just a concept" that would require authorization from Congress.
"We're not advocating that it should be done," he said. "All we're saying is . . . we've been in this business for [more than 60] years. We know how to run a draft."
That's a draft for the people who are in the shortest supply in the military---particular kinds of doctors, engineers, etc. Its already happening within the ranks of the national guard as well as retired military personnel, many of whom have been brought back into active duty because of their particular area of expertise.
Here's the excerpt:
There's not going to be a draft. Political leaders can't seem to say that enough. But if there were to be one, it could be of specific skilled professionals rather than general conscription, Flahavan said. That could mean women would be included -- and the cutoff age could be extended past 25 years.
Since 1987, at Congress's request, the Selective Service has had a plan to register male and female health care workers ages 20 to 45 in more than 60 medical specialties in case the country suddenly needed more doctors or nurses. The proposal would require the authorization of Congress and the president.
More recently, the agency has talked about reinventing itself by registering all sorts of professionals whose expertise could be helpful in an emergency. That way, the Selective Service could become a national "repository or inventory of special skills," according to the agency's annual report.
The "special skills" draft could give the government the option of calling up people in a variety of specialties, such as linguists, computer experts, police officers or firefighters, Flahavan said.
Other government agencies besides the Department of Defense could draft those workers, the report states. They could include U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The agency knows what angst such a program could cause, and Flahavan repeatedly stresses that it is "just a concept" that would require authorization from Congress.
"We're not advocating that it should be done," he said. "All we're saying is . . . we've been in this business for [more than 60] years. We know how to run a draft."
posted by Hans Riemer at 9:46 AM
22 Comments:
FIRST POST!!
Well, ya know, after a supposedly "non partisan" organization like Rock the Vote fear mongers about a draft for ALL OF LAST YEAR, it's not a surprise people are now scared.
There isn't going to be a draft. It would be political suicide to have one, and it would also be pretty pointless, given that a drafted army would totally lack the ability to do what they would be needed to do.
Stick to scaring people on Social Security. The draft scare is over, it proved RTV out to be fools last year after the election. The same thing will happen on SS, but hey, at least some people think you have some credibility on that.
There will never be a draft. The only way to start a draft again is if we are deliberately attacked by another nations military.
Stop scaring young people!
This excerpt pretty much kills the entire post and story:
"There's not going to be a draft. Political leaders can't seem to say that enough. But if there were to be one, it could be of specific skilled professionals rather than general conscription, Flahavan said."
So if 'there's not going to be a draft' then why are we even talking about this? Calling people up who are military reserve is one thing because they are under contract, its what they signed up for. RTV should not be in the business of scaring young voters to believe that the government is going to drag us out of our living rooms and put us on the front line without some proof. Speculation of what might happen if someone got their way is doing nothing more than scaring people over a non-issue.
I think that it is important to keep this idea floating around. And I would like to point out - we already have a draft. It's called the poverty draft and it happens every single day.
Poverty draft. Holy crap, are you serious?
I suppose, then, that people who take low paying jobs are also part of a "poverty draft", and so is anyone else who takes an entry level job. Or hey, whoever isn't a CEO of a major corporation must ALSO be part of the "poverty draft" too, since there's people above them!
Quit playing class warfare. This kind of leftist drivel is why people are slowly but surely realizing the left is full of nothing more than fear mongering class warfare hate politics. If some kid off the streets wants to make some money and start a career by going into the military, GOOD FOR THEM, and good for us for giving them the opportunity. A career in the military sets you up for a pretty solid future, especially if you do a good job in it.
The funny part is that you leftists would be whining about "discrimination against the poor" if the military didn't recruit those who were poor, or didn't offer them the positions that they can now get. But since we DO offer them that opportunity, people like Lindsey up here decide to complain about "poverty drafts."
Is there ANY pleasing you people? It's as if some of you exist purely to complain about everything there is to complain about in life.
YOU ARE EXPOSED.
Not only is a draft bad politics, but it's bad policy, as well. We need a leaner, meaner, slimmer, and trimmer, military, with more automation, more technology, and so on. An all-volunteer army just works a lot better than an army with a draft.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!! Oh my God!!! Lindsey, you can't be serious. Oh man. You and the others like you are why I like to read and participate in this blog.
Yeah, I guess its important to keep the idea around so that dems can scare a small portion of the youth, but I find it interesting that the only real proposal in congress to restart the draft is by a democrat that goes by Charles Rangel, which by the way, got no where.
I don't even think it is worth commenting on the poverty draft comment. I went to college with a lot of my friends who never would have had the opportunity to go if it weren't for the reserves, but they would have done just fine in some type of offshore and labor work. They are all very thinkful, and if asked, they would certainly tell you they were not in a poverty draft. I also have a few friends that came from well off military families that chose a career, that's right a career, in the military because it's a family tradition.
I am assuming you are very young, Lindsey. Don't worry, age usually cures ignorance.
"And I would like to point out - we already have a draft. It's called the poverty draft and it happens every single day."
That is an insult. My father was in the military, and his father was certainly not poor, much less impoverished. Apologize.
Selective service registration has been around for decades...that doesn't mean that you all will be drafted as implied by RTV. This is scare tactics, at it's most simplistic.
I would hope that the college students (who I assume visit this site most) would have the intellectual capacity to discern between scare tactics advocated by RTV and the DNC versus policies grounded in reality.
I might add, to the members here like Lindsey...the recent draft bill was introduced by Charles Rangel (D), not the evil Bush/Cheney/Rove cabal, as the continual spin by raving moonbats on the left proclaim.
Seriously Lindsey, and the other members here of the college ilk...please question your professors, and do not accept in lockstep their professed liberal beliefs as the gospel of mankind.(gasp..invoked the word 'gospel'). Personally, I thought you were in college to think for yourself...I guess not...my bad!
Remember, those tenured profs. have virtually never held a real job outside of the campus...you will, after graduation...and just trust me...your Boss will not put up with your whiny, self-righteous "what about my self-esteem (feelings)" ass if you don't produce on the job. If you cannot comprehend having a "real" job, begin learning to apply for unemployment benefits...oops...hey wait...that's right, I forgot, the government "owes" you a living...
If you don't qualify for the above benefits, and they turn you down, please remember this passage to learn..."Do you accept foodstamps?"
Reality is the greatest teacher...
Gothguy
Hey BakaMalet,
Selective Service is not new, nor is it either a "new" term for a draft.
Check your facts. Thanks, and have a nice day.
Goth
You all miss the point or perhaps I do. You claim that these are scare tactics. No these are tactics to insure that a draft doesn't occur. See support for the war in Iraq is gone. Polls show that the majority of Americans now prescribe to the belief that Iraq was and is a mistake. This is why people that thought for themselves though in the minority, at the time, came to the conclsuion that post-war Iraq would be a mess. Another avenue could have been taken in the Iraq debacle.
Recruitment is down. We already have a backdoor draft in the stop-loss policy that is overextedning our troops and decreasing morale. Desertion is at record numbers. The pentagon has even changed the rules to allow both drug abusers and those that commit crimes to stay in the military. Though these problems exist in trying to find the grunts, the Bush admin is still catering to the far religious rights cry for no gays, in society as well as, in the military.
So what is our Republican controlled government going to do? Draft? That is the question being posed. How are we going to be successful in Iraq by staying the course as Bush continues to use say? Using empty rhetoric doesn't solve the mess. What about Afghanistan? What about Osama? What about North Korea? Iran?
Why aren't all the war supporters joing up for military service? Calling on their listeners, readers, viewers to help out our military in it's time of need? Where is the sacrifice?
Will,
"We need a leaner, meaner, slimmer, and trimmer, military, with more automation, more technology, and so on."
That and the base cuts should reduce spending on defense and either allow us to balance the budget, reduce the deficet, or use the money for other needs. Do you ever ask why that hasn't happended? Why Republicans haven't given our veterans what they deserve, like a new veterans bill of rights? sufficient healthcare and other benefits? Do you find it appalling the way Republicans have treated those that serve their country?
erik, the ONLY politician talking about a draft is a Democrat. In fact he's also the one putting forth a bill in congress to make it happen, so don't go posting that its the Republicans who are doing this.
The draft will not come back, and until you have Bush or another Republican leader telling us their thinking about it I'd call the matter closed.
Sean,
You call the matter closed. Do you not care about what is going on in Iraq? Do you not care about our troops? Do you not care about capturing Osama or any of the other threats that I mentyioned? Do you not care about how thin our military is stretched? Do you not care about the recruitment being down, the changes in the military laws of who they can throw out, backdoor draft, decreasing morale, desertion going up, etc.?
These are questions that must be asked and answered. Your approach would be to do nothing. To ask nothing. You aks these questions so a draft doesn't happen again. We should demand that these questions be answered and something be done about it.
Rahm Emmanuel has proposed a new GI bill of rights, much like the one our troops got coming home after wwii. It gives them healthcare, money for school, increases insurance payment to their families in cases of death, etc. Where are the Repub when the troops that defended our country come home? These men and women that sacrificed deserve to be treated well by our government.
Where were you under Clinton, Eric? I'm sure you weren't writing him to treat our troops better. If you try to tell me that clinton treated our troops better, I will destroy your post with facts. Please try to make the argument.
No, erik, I care about the troops because many of my friends are in the Airborne, and have been in both theaters of combat in recent years. I care deeply for them, and while you want to think that by pointing out the absurdness of the draft coming back somehow correlates to not-caring you couldn't be further from the truth. The military DOES NOT want a draft, volunteer soldiers are more willing to fight and be trusted by your brothers in arms than someone pressed into service. The last thing we need are a bunch of draftees fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Talk about low morale, start the draft again and see it hit rock bottom (BTW according to my sources morale is fine, higher than it was under Clinton, but many troops just don't feel like they're appreciated back home).
I'm all for raising military pay, benefits, etc. Of course that means cutting social spending, and i wonder if you're willing to do that erik?
"Of course that means cutting social spending, and i wonder if you're willing to do that erik?"
That is social spending.
Why aren't you over there if so many of your friends are in the airborne?
"BTW according to my sources morale is fine, higher than it was under Clinton, but many troops just don't feel like they're appreciated back home" This is a right wing talking point. It can't be backed up with fact. Studies have shown a steady delcine in morale. Clinton wasn't at war in Iraq. There was bosnia but no troops were killed.
Show me anony how Clinton treated our troops worse, please.
If you want to honor the troops go to http://www.securingamerica.com/?q=node/171 and sign the petition to support the gi bill of rights for the 21st century.
erik -
"Why aren't you over there if so many of your friends are in the airborne?"
Why aren't you?
See I too can play that game... I don't have to go into my reason but only to say that if I could I would.
I love how you're being selective with your Clinton/UN conflicts... Bosnia... huh, well its kinda hard to fight for your country when your confined to base, and BTW there were American deaths in Bosnia, none that I can confirm due to combat (again if that was permitted perhaps a different story would have emerged). I would, however, LOVE to hear how you justify our involvement and the US deaths in Serbia while Clinton was in Office.
Also, I'm at a loss as to what you mean by:
"That is social spending."
Does that mean you agree that in order to boost Military pay social spending will need to be cut?
Sorry hit return before I was done...
Back to the "that is social spending"...
.. or do you believe that the Constitutional mandate of the Federal Government to provide a common Defense is on par with Social Security, welfare, unemployment, funding for the arts, etc? Tell me, how would you get the extra money to pay for higher wages and benefits for soldiers? Oh wait, let me guess... higher taxes on the rich.
I love how dems come out of the woodworks when a republican is in office and start yelling about how we treat our troops. You can never do enough for the troops when a Republican is in office. When a Dem is in office, NOTHING. You don't hear a damn peep from the Erik's of the world, except "cut this military spending, cut that military spending."
Erik, grow a spine and try to at least live by your convictions and stop using the military to make a political point. If you don't support the military when Clinton is in office, then don't try to act like you support them under Bush.
Erik,
I am in the military and have been for years. I came in the military under the Clinton administration and let me tell you the military IS treated much better under the Bush administration than the Clinton administration.
You talk about how good things were in the military under Clinton. Lets see the Somalia crisis happened in 1993. Who was president? That's right Clinton was.
I have served in both Afghanastan and Iraq during both initial wars. While we were there, all we heard about was how unsupportive the civilians back here. Alot of us did not want to come home because of that. Is that supporting the military? I'm not saying you have to support what the politicians do, but PLEASE support the troops who put their lives on the line so that you may sleep peacefull at night.
When I first came home from Iraq I did not want to go anywhere. I went to work and straight home everyday. It was 2 weeks after I got home before I would go to a store on the base and another month before I would leave the base. Alot of troops go through that. It is could a transition period. Why should this continue to happen to troops when they come home?
A draft is the last thing we want. I do not want a draftee fighting next to me. I know he would not take his basic training seriously and they would be more likely to get people killed around them.
Do me a favor, next time you come across someone serving in the military instead of sticking your nose in the air at them, tell them "thank you" because all of us in uniform provide the very safety and protection of freedom you take forgranted everyday.
Post a Comment
<< Home