Reply
Tue 20 Apr, 2004 05:02 pm
Senator says US may need compulsory service to boost Iraq force
Tue Apr 20, 2004
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A senior Republican lawmaker said that deteriorating security in Iraq may force the United States to reintroduce the military draft.
"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq.
"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."
The Nebraska Republican added that a draft, which was ended in the early 1970s, would spread the burden of military service in Iraq more equitably among various social strata.
"Those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and lower middle class," he observed.
The call to consider a imposing a draft comes just days after the Pentagon moved to extend the missions of some 20,000 of the 135,000 US troops in Iraq.
Some critics of the US-led occupation complain that military planners used too few troops to subdue Iraq, and insist that more military muscle will be needed to restore order.
The US-led military coalition was put under further strain by the announcement this week by coalition members Spain and Honduras that they would withdraw their military contingents from Iraq.
Meanwhile, witnesses at the hearing, including academics and former US officials, expressed concern about ongoing flareups of violence in Iraq this month -- the bloodiest yet for US troops.
"I think it's clear that pressures in Iraq have reached the boiling point," said Samuel Berger, national security adviser during the Bill Clinton administration, who called for an increase in troops there, and a "genuine, non-grudging effort to internationalize the enterprise in Iraq, both military and civilian."
"We've got to be prepared to give up our hammerlock on decision making in exchange for genuine burden sharing."
Richard Perle, a former White House adviser who currently serves as a fellow at a conservative think tank, advised against adding troops or extending the date of handover of Iraqi sovereignty beyond the currently-set June 30 date.
"It is essential that we not delay the handover of sovereignty set for the end of June, even if there is continuing violence by those who know they have no place in a decent, democratic Iraq," he said.
Perle also warned against entrusting the United Nations with the post-occupation administration of Iraq, saying UN involvement should be kept at "an absolute minimum."
"A large UN contingent in Iraq ... would do more harm than good," Perle said.
"It would discourage the assumption of sovereignty by Iraqis themselves. It would drain resources urgently needed for the development of Iraq's economy," Perle said.
A senior Democrat meanwhile, lashed out at the White House for failing to send a top administration official to appear before the panel.
"I think it is outrageous that the administration has not provided every witness we've asked for," said Senator Joseph Biden, the highest-ranking Democrat on the committee.
"The fact that they are not prepared to send a witness means that they are either totally incompetent and they don't have anything to tell us ... or they're refusing to allow us to fulfill our constitutional responsibility" of congressional oversight, Biden said.
The committee's Republican chairman, Richard Lugar, also slammed the White House for "inadequate planning and communication related to Iraq."
I'm kind of expecting it, not very happily. I've got three sons, all over 18. If they die in a war, I'd rather it be an honest one.
I've been saying for awhile these bastards were going to reinstitute the draft, and people have called me an idiot.
I've been told the American public won't stand for it. Horseshit. The American public have become no balls frightened sheep.They will do as they're told.
I could puke.
War
If there is another Draft I strongly feel that it should include females. Also, if there is a Draft how will it insusre that not only Middle Class or below are the only ones that actually serve. Most of the men of the Vietnam Debacle were Middle Class or below. The Upper Classes usually find ways for their sons not to serve. The Guard and other such aren't the safe havens they used to be.
Suzy
Suzy, your concern for your three sons touched me deeply. My children escaped the threat of the draft by coming of age at a time when the US was not at war.
I think that the call for a draft is coming mostly from congress persons who are opposed to the war as a way of inflaming the public against it.
I also think it would be a political mistake for the Bush administration to support a draft, at least before the election in November. After the election, all bets are off.
I, personally, am not in favor of increasing the size of our military forces beyond that needed to defend the country. I think that increasing the number of troops only encourages ill-advised imperialistic military adverturism.
BBB
"I, personally, am not in favor of increasing the size of our military forces beyond that needed to defend the country. I think that increasing the number of troops only encourages ill-advised imperialistic military adverturism"
This is the gist of the entire foundation of PNAC, the evil bastards. With Bush in the white house, they're able to accelerate their takeover of America. I bet that people like this are the reason for the phrase "Kill the Rich".
Start with the prisons...
Spread out the loss, spread out the death -- don't place the entire burden of this sham war on the lower and middle classes.
Once the sons of rich Senators are killed in Iraq, Bush's war will quickly come to a close.
McGentrix wrote:Start with the prisons...
Start with the people who have a hard on for war.....100% fit or not...give'em a taste of what they want so badly......that's what we need on the front lines...cold hearted killers like McGentrix here.......after all that's what war is...cold hearted killing....
Nah, all those innocent drug dealers would certainly serve the country for a year over spending a mandatory 20 incarcerated.
We could have gangs instead of squads and supply spray paint so they can mark their territories.
Do you really want a military comprised of people who have proven incapable of following rules and regs?
This story does suggest that a draft may eventually be needed.
Maintaning troop strength
From the second page:
Re-enlistment rates, which are already begining to drop, as well as initial recruiting rates, are likely to fall even further because of this. What do you tell soldiers? "Son, your in this for the duration..its the "last battle"... no getting out until we have defeated "evil?" "
Most of them already have weapons experience. Most can read and with proper discipline could become reliable members of society.
Or are you suggesting that because they are prisoners that they are somehow inferior?
McGentrix wrote:Most of them already have weapons experience. Most can read and with proper discipline could become reliable members of society.
Or are you suggesting that because they are prisoners that they are somehow inferior?
I am stating that the key to effectiveness in the military is discipline. In combat or in peacetime, the ability to follow orders is paramount, no ifs ands or buts. I sincerely doubt those who have a proven penchant for breaking the law would be effective. The era of "join the army or go to jail," though still a popular jody-call, is long gone, and ended in the later 1970s.
The original idea in this country was that that the military be composed of citizens ie militia, who had a stake in both the nation and limitations on the reach of the military. That ideal has slowly receded. I doubt it will return and therefore I doubt there will be a draft. The Bush administration has dug it's self a deep hole in Iraq and it is having difficulty climbing out for there are not easy domestic political solutions. The solution which fits its ideological proclivities can be found on the editorial page of today's New York Times, private armies (mercenaries). As the editorial points out the ultimate loyalty of these people are to whomever pays them and if we go that rout, which I think we will, it is the beginning of the end for the republic.
hobitbob wrote:Do you really want a military comprised of people who have proven incapable of following rules and regs?
Why not? We have a White House full of 'em running the country and look how well that's turning out......
The draft may be necessary and even inevitable. However, talk of it by the administration will be muted until after the presidential election. IMO a draft or even a hint of it before the election would be a death Nell to Bush's reelection bid.
Consider how the constant and increasing reports of dead and wounded from Iraq would influence the vote of the parents of this nation.
McGentrix wrote:Nah, all those innocent drug dealers would certainly serve the country for a year over spending a mandatory 20 incarcerated.
We could have gangs instead of squads and supply spray paint so they can mark their territories.
Yeah, that's real smart. The first people they'd shoot would be their officers. I think the US has got quite enough raving f@cking lunatics in uniform without trying to turn prisoners into soldiers.
Why would you think that every prisoner would be some weird delinquent? Isn't one of the left bread and butter philosophies that prisoners can be reformed? I think the military would be a great confidence booster and disciplinarian for many, many prisoners locked away for non-violent crimes.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace