U.S. Plans Test of Military Draft

[Starla]

By JOHN HENDREN
Dec. 22, 2006 —*The Selective Service plans to test its operational system in case the United States again opts to draft young American men into military service — a test laden with meaning as the Bush administration considers increasing the size of the military and a surge of new troops in Iraq.
Preparations for the new test, slated for 2009, will begin in June. But Selective Service officials, who have been overwhelmed with telephone inquiries over the news, are quick to say that this test is merely a routine exercise.
"The whole thing's a tempest in a teapot," agency spokesman Dick Flahavan said. "We're not getting ready to spring a draft."
The Bush administration has opposed a draft, with former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld saying the current all-volunteer force is adequate and more effective. But the prospect of a draft has been increasingly controversial as the three-year-old war in Iraq grows progressively more unpopular with the American public.
Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson on Thursday told reporters that "society would benefit" under a renewed draft, though he later said he did not support bringing it back.
Democrats opposed to the Iraq war have used the threat of a new draft to draw Americans' attention to the stakes of the conflict. Incoming Ways and Means Committee Chair Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said last month that he plans to reintroduce legislation in the 110th Congress to reinstate the draft.
A Troop Surge

The test was announced as President Bush appears likely to declare a surge of 30,000 or more new Americans troops to join the current 140,000 soldiers on the ground in Iraq to curb rising violence. Bush told The Washington Post that he is also favorably inclined toward increasing the size of the Army and Marines. The services have recently lowered standards for many of the 1.4 million-strong service members now in uniform in order to maintain current recruiting levels.
Rangel has offered — and voted against — the measure in the past. In October 2004, a month away from a tight presidential race fueled by rumors of a new draft, the Republican-led Congress overwhelming defeated Rangel's bill to restore conscription, 402-2.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., and Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., were the only members of Congress to vote in its favor.

Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said the proposal is not high on the congressional priority list come January, but she commended Rangel's commitment to the cause last month.

"It's not about a draft; it's about shared sacrifice in our country," Pelosi told reporters in her office.

But when asked directly if she supported a measure to reinstate the draft, "No, no," was Pelosi's answer.

The test is a dry run of the machinery that randomly selects men who are legally obligated to sign up at 18 and the bureaucracy that considers conscientious objectors and appeals for delays based on hardship.

History of the Test

The agency has run through tests periodically since mandatory draft registration was reinstituted in 1980 for the first time since the Vietnam War. But it hasn't tested the system since 1998 due to funding shortages, Flahavan said. The organization's budget has slipped from about $28 million in the 1980s to $24 million in 2006. So the test, last planned for 2005, has also been delayed, Flahavan said.

"The year 2009 seemed like the closest time we could do it given resources and manpower," Flahavan said. "It may not even happen then depending on what we look like in 2008."

The agency has a full-time staff of 150 but would need 6,000 to carry out a draft. Another 11,000 part-time officials in 2,000 local draft boards and state headquarters have been designated, but only do annual training in case of a draft, agency officials said.

"My title's bigger than my staff," quips Flahavan, associate director for public affairs. "Most of our structure doesn't exist during peacetime because there is no draft." Source

[Trotskilicious]

HERE WE GO AGAIN

[Starla]

Iraq will be like a trip to douche mountain!

[wHATcOLOR]

im not really keen on the idea of murdering people

[Nimrod's Son]

The draft could be the best thing that ever happened to the laziest generation in history

[Toast]

Good thing i'll be 26 next april. good luck with this though.

[Effloresce]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

The draft could be the best thing that ever happened to the laziest generation in history

Go fuck yourself.

[Nate the Grate]

Oh, cool, I'll be graduating college in 2009. I won't have anything stopping me from a ticket to Iraq! Sweet!

[JokeyLoki]

Read the article... they last tested it in 1998, they test it regularly, but haven't been able to up until this point because they didn't have the money. And they're not testing it again until 2009.

This is not news. This is the media blowing something up that isn't worth hearing about.

[Mariner]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

The draft could be the best thing that ever happened to the laziest generation in history

a draft would be the worst thing you could to to the laziest generation in history.

[Karl Connor]

how old do you have to be for eligibility?

[Nate the Grate]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

The draft could be the best thing that ever happened to the laziest generation in history

Wait, isn't it generally accepted that Generation X is the laziest generation? I'm lookin in your direction big guy.

[Karl Connor]

nimrod's an exception to the rule

[Karl Connor]

[The Omega Concern]

Military forces have lowered their standards to meet recruiting goals recently (that's worth looking into if you got the time)...so the numbers are there currently to sustain a volunteer force.

im kinda laughing at the irony how Rumsfeld was the biggest opponent to a draft and had a vision of the military of the future to be lean and swift with high technology...

With all the hate he got from dumbass college kids like those from socialist clubs from Columbia Univ., they should watch what they wish for...hah.

overall though, JokeyLoki is right about this at the moment. .

[Effloresce]

Originally Posted by Karl Connor

nimrod's an exception to the rule

Yeah I always seem to notice that too

[ravenguy2000]

I like dick, does this apply to me.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

The draft could be the best thing that ever happened to the laziest generation in history

I don't know about that. I'm pretty sure it'd get people off their ass, but they'd just plop it back down in the street somewhere and call it a "protest." I don't think for a second that it would drive a lot of people into usefulness.

[Nate the Grate]

Do you people equate "laziness" with "protesters" or something?

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Nate the Grate

Do you people equate "laziness" with "protesters" or something?

No. I just think a lot of people would be more apt to fight for their right to stay lazy than they would be to let themselves get drafted and let the military shape them up into useful citizens like Nimrod seems to be suggesting.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

No. I just think a lot of people would be more apt to fight for their right to stay lazy than they would be to let themselves get drafted and let the military shape them up into useful citizens like Nimrod seems to be suggesting.

Wow this 'military' sounds AWESOME. Is it like camp?

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Wow this 'military' sounds AWESOME. Is it like camp?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I think the military would actually shape people up. I'm more of the view that infusing a bunch of disenchanted folks into the military against their will would fuck up the military way more than it'd ever help those drafted. But there do seem to be a lot of people out there who seem to think that a little mandatory civil service would set "the damn kids these days" straight, and that's something I don't buy into. And if the generation we're talking about is "the laziest ever," then I doubt many of them will even give it a chance to work anyway.

Then again, maybe Nimrod meant "lazy" in the political sense...in which case I guess his point would make some sense.

[Starla]

Why must being an objector to war be equated with laziness?
Slapping a gun in a kid's hand and sending them off to kill people is helping them "get a real life" or something to do?

It seems that the people who crow loudest about how people need to be patriots and die in some senseless war, are the same ones who sit back on their asses and do nothing at all.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by To Starla

Why must being an objector to war be equated with laziness?
Slapping a gun in a kid's hand and sending them off to kill people is helping them "get a real life" or something to do?

Who's equating laziness to objecting to the war? No one is saying being anti-war has anything to do with being lazy. You doth protest too much.

The point being discussed in reference to Nimrod's comment, to my understanding, is whether or not a draft would shape up lazy people into productive citizens or not. It has nothing at all to do with how good or bad you think the war or the military is.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Who's equating laziness to objecting to the war? No one is saying being anti-war has anything to do with being lazy. You doth protest too much.

The point being discussed in reference to Nimrod's comment, to my understanding, is whether or not a draft would shape up lazy people into productive citizens or not. It has nothing at all to do with how good or bad you think the war or the military is.

It was more your comment about how these lazy people would protest so they could stop the military from making them into productive citizens, as though there wouldn't be any other reasons they might not want to go off to war (like not wanting to get shot at).

As for whether the military would actually do that, I had this debate with someone I used to work with - he was an ex-army guy, served in northern ireland and all that, and he said that a couple of years mandatory service would work wonders and it should be put into place. I basically said that it probably would help a lot of people, but it would probably destroy a lot of others - one person might gain discipline and confidence whereas another could be reduced to a shell, so it should be up to the individual to choose.

I'm not so sure how much it would help when it even worked though, since I've seen enough slack-jawed ex-military types. Plus there's the whole thing about people coming back from war and being unable to actually reintegrate themselves into society, unable to make the switch back to civilian life

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

It was more your comment about how these lazy people would protest so they could stop the military from making them into productive citizens, as though there wouldn't be any other reasons they might not want to go off to war (like not wanting to get shot at).

I was just saying I think that a lot of people have laziness so ingrained into who they are that they wouldn't take any attempts to force them into "productivity" lying down...to the point that if they got up off their ass at all then it'd only be to fight those attempts. It was supposed to be a comment on lazy people, not on protesters.

As for whether the military would actually do that, I had this debate with someone I used to work with - he was an ex-army guy, served in northern ireland and all that, and he said that a couple of years mandatory service would work wonders and it should be put into place. I basically said that it probably would help a lot of people, but it would probably destroy a lot of others - one person might gain discipline and confidence whereas another could be reduced to a shell, so it should be up to the individual to choose.

I'm not so sure how much it would help when it even worked though, since I've seen enough slack-jawed ex-military types. Plus there's the whole thing about people coming back from war and being unable to actually reintegrate themselves into society, unable to make the switch back to civilian life

I basically agree. I do tend to think, however, the military as a career gets a pretty bad rap, particularly these days. There's a lot more to it than just slapping a gun in the hand of the dumbest grunt you can trick into the recruiter's office and telling him to go kill people or jump in front of a bullet. Its not a death warrant or a last resort for losers who can't get a better job, but a lot of people like to treat it as such and as a result some people who would probably be well suited for the work don't enlist because of all the negativity.

But be all that as it may, its obviously not for all people. Its probably not even for most people. And I surely don't think that forcing people into it is an option that would be good for anybody. For every draftee that ends up wanting to make a career out of his enlistment, there'll be a handful more who hate it and will want nothing more than to serve their time and get out. And the latter are not exactly the type of people you want to fill up a top notch fighting force with. I'm not sure fucking with the effectiveness of the armed forces is worth a few more warm bodies in the barracks and the empty hope that some civil service will build character.

[TuralyonW3]

OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH CAAAAAAAAAAAAANAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAAA

[TuralyonW3]

http://ec.europa.eu/education/img/flags/canada.gif

[TuralyonW3]

http://animatedtv.about.com/library/...n_Canada_4.jpg

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by Corganist

I was just saying I think that a lot of people have laziness so ingrained into who they are that they wouldn't take any attempts to force them into "productivity" lying down...to the point that if they got up off their ass at all then it'd only be to fight those attempts. It was supposed to be a comment on lazy people, not on protesters.

Yeah I know, that's why I said 'not wanting to get shot' instead of the higher moral reasons usually associated with protesting. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to get shot at in a foreign country, however 'productive' it might be.

Originally Posted by Corganist

I basically agree. I do tend to think, however, the military as a career gets a pretty bad rap, particularly these days. There's a lot more to it than just slapping a gun in the hand of the dumbest grunt you can trick into the recruiter's office and telling him to go kill people or jump in front of a bullet. Its not a death warrant or a last resort for losers who can't get a better job, but a lot of people like to treat it as such and as a result some people who would probably be well suited for the work don't enlist because of all the negativity.

But be all that as it may, its obviously not for all people. Its probably not even for most people. And I surely don't think that forcing people into it is an option that would be good for anybody. For every draftee that ends up wanting to make a career out of his enlistment, there'll be a handful more who hate it and will want nothing more than to serve their time and get out. And the latter are not exactly the type of people you want to fill up a top notch fighting force with. I'm not sure fucking with the effectiveness of the armed forces is worth a few more warm bodies in the barracks and the empty hope that some civil service will build character.

Eh, I think it's a combination of the media actually showing dumbasses in action in the army ('WOO SHOOT THEM MOTHERFUCKERS' etc.) and the recruiting tactics/drop in recruiting standards that's adding to that reputation. Everyone agrees that conscription is bad though, that it's a last resort and it provides generally unwilling soldiers and reduces general morale. I think mandatory service has to be built into the national identity though, something that's just a part of everyone's life - it won't convince everyone, but it has a far better chance of being successful