stevendedalus stevendedalus

Draft Inevitable — “no Brainer”

▼

Draft Inevitable — “no Brainer”

from JoeUser Forums

“The draft — which will include both boys and girls this time around — a no-brainer in ‘05 and ‘06.” — David Hackworth; www.hackworth.com

Hackworth’s position is that the war on terror, excluding Iraq, will require more boots on the ground and that no amount of sophisticated blockbuster weapons can effectively hunt down terrorists. The “Stop Loss” program of the Pentagon extending enlistments beyond contractual agreements in effect has transformed the volunteers as “backdoor draftees” who are determined to take a powder if the chance arises. This will inevitably lead to a draft in order to increase the number of grunts needed for a global rifleman’s war.

For those who espouse an all volunteer service, thanks to Rumsfeld’s shameless comment: that Vietnam draftees added “no value, no advantage, really, to the United States armed services…it took an enormous amount of effort in terms of training, and then they were gone.”

The fact is the “no value” draftees in the last century fought two world wars and two major conflicts with honor. Also training time is no different for draftee or regular, and the length of service is determined by the duration of conflicts — unfortunately in this case unending.

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: October 7, 2004.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

politics
21,911 views 64 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #50 By: Lee1776 - 10/10/2004 1:47:44 AM
That's My Two Cents


I'll add a dime to that.
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top

Sad political maneuvering.
If true, I agree; but that is not my intent.
So Steve, it's time to pony up man. I have a set of enlistment papers in my office for you to sign
Sick satire and meaningless to a 76 year old ex-marine.


Kerry wants to build another two Divisions for the Army. Taking into account number two and three above, how will he fill them?
With higher pay and benefits.
While under Bush reenlistments are at a all time high.
Because of extraordinary patriotism immediately after 9/11; it is now on the decline due to Iraq.

Siege of Centauri
Reply #53 from PolMach Forums Top
Because of extraordinary patriotism immediately after 9/11; it is now on the decline due to Iraq.


You can't tell us it is on the decline when Lee is down in the works of that system and says otherwise.

- GX
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top


Kerry wants to build another two Divisions for the Army. Taking into account number two and three above, how will he fill them?
With higher pay and benefits.


And just what is he going to use to pay for this? I'm not saying that they (armed forces) don't need higher pay or benefits. But I will say this....Their pay has come a loooong way from when you and I were in,Grunt!
Reply #55 from PolMach Forums Top
Sick satire and meaningless to a 76 year old ex-marine.


Thanks for your service. I'm just glad that you know the true meaning to service. Some people like to talk it up, but are so unwilling to do their service if required.

With higher pay and benefits.


That only goes so far. When I first joined service I thought most infantry men where brain dead. But as I worked with them and later trained as one, I started to notice that few had enlisted for big bonuses or low test score requirements. Most had enlisted for the pride, honor and service (along with the action). Kerry fundamentally undermines all those beliefs (which examples I have given you in other posts).

Because of extraordinary patriotism immediately after 9/11; it is now on the decline due to Iraq.


I do agree with you on your first half of the statement, but I don't because it has not declined. Below is a link to a briefing given to Congress earlier this year by Asst. Secretary of the Amy Brown to the Arms services committee. In it he states that last year 54,000 personnel reenlisted, as of the time of the briefing 58,000 had reenlisted. That is as of March of this year, only half way through the year. He also stated that the National Guard will be reaching 160% of their reenlistments goals FY 2004.

This matches all the reports that I have seen around the unit.

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2004/March/Reginald%20Brown.pdf

Just because Kerry and his team preaches Doom and Gloom, does not make it reality. I am not worried about what Kerry says (because I know he will change his position after the next poll), I'm more worried about what he has not said. He thinks that a draft would be required under Bush, but he also says he will do more and be more tougher on terrorism. But he fails to say that a draft will not start under him, which leads me to believe that a draft will be more likely under him.

That's My Two Cents

PS: I'm glad that you noticed the satire. Many people have taken all this way to serious. But you would be surprised what a waver could do now days. Do you take a size 11 Boot?
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
if it comes down to going to war with Iran for REAL reasons (ie refusal to stop producing wmd's which they have ADMITED to. And in that case it would be with UN apporval.


Actually, I bet that the UN wouldn't do anything for years and years....look at how many resolutions they had against Iraq....nothing was done. They just kept reissuing "resolutions" and running back door scams. The UN will present a pretty face to the world and do nothing. Any organization that can be so full of deciet and hypocricy is unlikely to accomplish anything.
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top
Any organization that can be so full of deciet and hypocricy is unlikely to accomplish anything.
I agree but Israel has defied many resolutions too.
Below is a link to a briefing given to Congress earlier this year by Asst. Secretary of the Amy Brown to the Arms services committee. In it he states that last year 54,000 personnel reenlisted, as of the time of the briefing 58,000 had reenlisted.
I think that referred to troops in other parts of the world and here--not Iraq or Afghanistan.
And just what is he going to use to pay for this? I'm not saying that they (armed forces) don't need higher pay or benefits. But I will say this....Their pay has come a loooong way from when you and I were in,Grunt!
Aye, I wonder how much $64 combat pay would be adjusted for inflation?
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #57 By: stevendedalus - 10/11/2004 12:25:00 AM
And just what is he going to use to pay for this? I'm not saying that they (armed forces) don't need higher pay or benefits. But I will say this....Their pay has come a loooong way from when you and I were in,Grunt!
Aye, I wonder how much $64 combat pay would be adjusted for inflation?


Actually I think now they call it hazerdous duty pay. And it's in the 3figure catagory Whoop-de-do!
Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hostile Fire Pay/Imminent Danger Pay is $225/mo and Hardship Duty Pay is $100/mo. Married soldiers also get Family Separation Pay, which is $250/mo. The Combat Zone Tax Exclusion allows soldiers to exclude all pay and allowances that are earned while serving in a combat zone or hazardous duty area. I have gripes about the CZTE, but the other deployment pays are generous.
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
Scare Tactics

That's all it is.

Think about it one moment please.

Think about how many military personell there were in 1990. An all volunteer force.

Think about the RIFT in 1991.

Do you really think that the only way to get the numbers up to half the level they were in 1990 is a draft?

Scare Tactics

Every Wednesday on SciFi
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
"
Scare Tactics

Every Wednesday on SciFi"


Funny show. I do think, however, that someone is gonna drop dead of a heard attack and they are gonna get SO sued...
Reply #62 from PolMach Forums Top
Texaii, since you reap part of it, I'm happy for you.
Reply #63 from PolMach Forums Top
I think that referred to troops in other parts of the world and here--not Iraq or Afghanistan.


No, that is all the Army. Since 83% of my State has either been deloyed or are presently deployed. I would have to say that would include more that have, then have not.

The report goes on to say that the Active Army was as of March at 94% and 90% for the Reserves. That is six months before the end of year.

You maybe getting this mixed up with the European Stars and Strips article from last year that is easly found on a Yahoo search.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #64 from PolMach Forums Top
I think General Cody has already stated that right now in the Army we have 640,000 personnel active, which is almost close to the cold war size military of 740,000.

Oh by the way, somebody pointed it out to me that Colonel Hackworth is 50% truth and 50% Bull, after all Colonel Hackworth said we could not win Desert Storm because the US military was too weak and too soft, so take his words with a grain of salt.

- GX