Comments on: John Edwards: No military draft if Democrats win

John Edwards: No military draft if Democrats win

jackspace — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:38:53 -0800

John Edwards: "No military draft if Democrats win" - which comes as a relief to me today as my own son turns eighteen. However, as it stands, the Selective Service System has been ramping up its ability to begin a draft as early as Spring 2005, especially a possibility should Congressional Bills S. 89 and H.R. 163, known as the "Universal National Service Act of 2003" pass in the House and Senate. Many people who have been in the military feel a draft would actually degrade the quality of our military forces. Nonetheless, this time around, a draft would include men and women. And the Selective Service is also looking for a few good people to become a Selective Service System Local Board Member, one of the tasks of which is to guarantee "that each CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR is properly CLASSIFIED, PLACED, and MONITORED."(emphasis added)

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:42:35 -0800

It's not nearly the social stigma to claim to be gay these days. Wonder how that will affect the military's ability to draft people without giving up on that particular issue. (though I suspect it's more repub politicians wanting to keep gays out tan the military wanting to keep willing and able recruits away, but I don't know for sure either way)

By: delmoi

delmoi — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:45:15 -0800

They also want to be able to draft people up to 45 or some ridiculous age like that. So it might not just be your son at risk. If we are going to have any chance, in my opinion, of 'pacifying' Iraq, we are going to need a draft.

By: benjh

benjh — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:48:02 -0800

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR. They say you can't be one unless you prove you've meant it for a long time. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR. Only if you are truly one can you be excluded. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR. People who love peace must not allow themselves to be pulled into wars of imperialism. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR. Did I mention that I am a CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR. I hope so, because I am a CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR.

By: b1tr0t

b1tr0t — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:51:31 -0800

They've got Job Openings too.

By: jackspace

jackspace — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:51:54 -0800

That last link is now dead. Check it out at the Memory Hole: become a Selective Service System Local Board Member

By: sciurus

sciurus — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:56:07 -0800

Hey jackspace, I think it works if you take of the l on the file extension. right?

By: PrinceValium

PrinceValium — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:00:09 -0800

"that each CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR is properly CLASSIFIED, PLACED, and MONITORED." This is an unfortunately worded section heading, but what it really means is that CO's are placed in alternative service positions. Read between the lines: "alternative service" = "empty bedpans at VA hospitals."

By: jackspace

jackspace — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:10:31 -0800

Well since the Iraq War was so popular, maybe they can get plenty of volunteers by just asking people who were Pro-Iraq War. Having already served in the military, including being part of the first Iraq War, I think I can say from experience that I wouldn't wish combat on anyone.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:37:06 -0800

From what I heard a few months ago the maximum draftable age is to be raised to 35.

By: obfusciatrist

obfusciatrist — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:40:14 -0800

Since it is a Democrat promising no draft (implying that the Republicans favor a draft), and since two bills (two years since last action on both, almost) are being pointed to as enablers of a potential draft, it is probably worth noting that the sponsors of those two bills are Democrats. Personally, I would not support a draft at this time, but considering the current situation, it makes sense for the SSS to be thinking about it.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:43:15 -0800

Maybe they really are planning another illegal war?

By: hughbot

hughbot — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:44:26 -0800

Drafts equal terrifying. I remember after Sept. 11, talking about the possibility of a Draft. Me and my friends just sort of laughed it off. Eep. Glad je suis Canadian.

By: kamikazegopher

kamikazegopher — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:47:34 -0800

Seems it's not so dire a threat

By: kamikazegopher

kamikazegopher — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:48:30 -0800

oops. Worked on preview. link

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:48:54 -0800

BC04: "the other guy will raise your taxes" KE04: "the other guy will draft your kids" Let's see how many people value their pocketbooks over their children.

By: skallas

skallas — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:00:31 -0800

> BC04: "the other guy will raise your taxes" Isn't it supposed to be: BC04: Vote for anyone else and a lot of people will die again! I fail to see the logic in that one as 9/11 happened on Bush's and Cheney's watch. While those two knuckleheads were either vacationing and ignoring memos about bin laden or were just busy giving the US's energy policy to their friends, they are the ones who screwed up and should be fired ASAP.

By: skallas

skallas — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:02:44 -0800

> Seems it's not so dire a threat Isn't this the same snopes which is run by a couple of Republicans who used their popular site to launch a false attack against Michael Moore's claim about the bin ladens getting flown out of the US? Oh right, it is. Sorry, but whatever credibility snopes had is forever gone.

By: Postroad

Postroad — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:03:45 -0800

The pro and anti draft notions are nonsense. First ask yourself: how many bases are there worldwide for theUSA? take a guess. If you say under 500 you are way off. Next ask yourself where these bases are and what they are "defending" or guarding? Who, for example, is the potential enemy that confronts the many servicemen we have in Germany? Norway? Poland, Russia? How many countries pay the total cost of our being in their country to protect and defend them? How much money is saved by those countries because they do not have to spend a large portion of their own money for "defense"? How many jobs would be available if a large number of the soldiers decided to quit the military and return to the states for civilian jobs? What jobs? Now, with some thought to this, why is the draft needed? If the military is so important, why has the president cut the budget for the Veterans' hospitals? Why did we send HumVees without armor protection into what is clearly a war Zone? Body armor? The don't ask don't tell idea will probably get you alternative service rather than a home free pass....how many in congress have children who will in one or another way find a way to avoid conscription? and on and on....

By: weston

weston — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:11:28 -0800

Who, for example, is the potential enemy that confronts the many servicemen we have in Germany? Norway? Poland, Russia? How many countries pay the total cost of our being in their country to protect and defend them? I'd understood that part of the reasoning for having military bases in these places is that they help us get to other places. I am no hawk, but it seems to me there's some wisdom in having bases around the world, including among countries we don't need to defend -- just so we have a presence in the region.

By: mikel

mikel — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:23:25 -0800

By: homunculus

homunculus — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:46:40 -0800

Maybe they really are planning another illegal war? Could be.

By: kamikazegopher

kamikazegopher — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:46:42 -0800

By: ugf

ugf — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:51:19 -0800

I absolutely do not support the idea of the draft for this war.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:16:54 -0800

U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:19:51 -0800

Jesus, mikel, even I hadn't considered that... christ. outsourced soldiers.. the ultimate disposable human beings. I can feel the heat from cheney's erection from here from him just thinking about it.

By: mwhybark

mwhybark — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:33:55 -0800

If I sign up to be an SSSLBM, does that mean I don't have to go?

By: tomplus2

tomplus2 — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:57:42 -0800

Let's just say, if there was a draft and you were of age, what would you do?

By: kindall

kindall — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:03:25 -0800

From what I heard a few months ago the maximum draftable age is to be raised to 35. I'm 36 in 26 days! Woot!

By: delmoi

delmoi — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:05:17 -0800

skallas: I've relied on Snopes for such a long time for accurate information (and with much success) that I took their credibility for granted. I remembered seeing this particular issue on their site a long time ago, and immediately referenced it. Now, I'm not sure what to think. From what I understand, the request whent directly from the saudi government to Richard Clark, who authorized it. Clark dosn't claim that Bush or anyone else pressured him to do it, so I don't really see how bush should take the blame for this.

By: davidmsc

davidmsc — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:24:22 -0800

1. I'm military, and I do NOT want a draft; nor do most of the co-workers that I've talked to about this. 2. Some might argue -- maybe even me, in the right mood -- that a draft could have beneficial effects on "society" as a whole, by taking large numbers of young men (and women, now) and giving them training, education, discipline, skills, etc. But the military isn't about enhancing society -- sure, that is one of the beneficial aspects of military service, but it is purely incidental to the sole purpose of the military: fighting wars and defending the nation. 3. The very notion of a draft is appalling -- it truly amounts to little more than slavery by claiming that a person is literally "owned" by the state. 4. I honestly don't think that a draft will be approved/implemented/accepted. Politicians and pundits (from all sides) will debate it to death, but in the end, I think that a military draft will not occur.

By: Satapher

Satapher — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:29:57 -0800

why would they need more people now that the war is over?

By: crabtreecharles

crabtreecharles — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:35:33 -0800

To continue what obfusciatrist posted: I checked each sponsor, through www.house.gov and www.senate.gov. They are ALL Democrats. This means one of three things: 1. Edwards isn't versed enough in current legislation to realize that it his own party behind the current draft movement. 2. Edwards does know enough about pending legislation to realize that his party is behind this discourse. He willingly infers that is the fault of the Republicans to gain political traction. 3. The sponsors, highly-ranked Democrats all, are actually rogue agents of the party, and are willfully pursuing legislation that is out of step with the views of their Presidential ticket. Oh, and in the future, maybe people should actually check a few facts before they start speaking about another war, illegal or not.

By: anastasiav

anastasiav — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:01:17 -0800

crabtreecharles, I'm too sleepy to google up some cites right now, but I'm sure someone else will in a moment ... ... my recollection is, however that the Dems who proposed this did so in an attempt to shift the bulk of the casualties away from the less economically advantaged socioeconomic strata who might tend to see joining the military as one of the few "ways out" of their current situation, or who might join the military for other, cultural reasons, and more towards the super-upper middle class (i.e. the Yuppie, Soccer mom class), thereby 'bringing home' the risks of military expeditions of this type. (In other words, they wanted to make sure that people other than young blacks and poor southerners would die to 'liberate' Iraq.) Of course, Bush, strangely, did that for them, with his virtually unprecedented use of the National Guard in long term, front-line roles. A quick poll at my (fairly liberal, upper-middle-class) workplace revealed that out of 30 people asked, no one knew anyone who was 'regular' military who is currently stationed in Iraq (although some knew military folk who are stationed in other places, mainly US & possessions and Europe), but everyone knew someone from the Guard who was there, and many knew four or more Guardsmen who were serving 'in country'. Granted, my state (Maine) has the highest percentage of serving Guardsmen of any state in the country, but I'll bet that this holds true in other states as well. Also, I think Mikel nailed it. On the other hand, nothing these men do would surprise me any more. Fortunately, I have a passport and its only four and a half hours into Canada from my house.

By: freebird

freebird — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:03:45 -0800

Is it not still the case that the draft proposals are from anti-war politicians, essentially saying "if you really want it, are you prepared for *your* kids to go?" - hence the proposals are being made as extreme as possible?

By: gyc

gyc — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:12:33 -0800

Well if the government is desparate enough to draft someone like me to fight on the front lines in Iraq, then the situation would probably be so bad that they probably should pull out of there. Of course since I support the war it's only fair of me to go and serve. Though with people like me defending the country I really wouldn't blame anyone that moves to Canada.

By: transient

transient — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:18:07 -0800

freebird, that's my recollection -- that it was a political statement with all sides knowing full well the bills wouldn't go anywhere.

By: eatitlive

eatitlive — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:18:17 -0800

The draft bill was proposed by Charles Rangel solely as political theater meant to highlight the fact that the US wasn't prepared to invade and occupy Iraq. Edward's claim has nothing to do with that bill, and everything to do with fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the future of the occupation.

By: crabtreecharles

crabtreecharles — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:29:21 -0800

anastasiav: Okay, you might be right. However, I do understand Rangel's reasoning. I know that this was for political theater, and that current concerns over the draft are in regard to potential resolutions that ight spring out of another Bush administration. I just find it a bit funny that everyone is worried about a potential threat from the right, when the only national mention of the draft has come from the left. Also, it just doesn't make any sense for the leadership of the Democratic party to endorse one course of action, regardless of potential political reasons, while their most important political candidate endorses another. The least they should do is kill the Democratic legislation. Rangel's point has been made, and he's not likely to receive any more helpful press on this issue. For them - the Democratic party - to continue to pursue both ends is not smart politics.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:14:19 -0800

re: snopes, FWIW there is a huge apology on that page.

By: eatitlive

eatitlive — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:42:18 -0800

Also, it just doesn't make any sense for the leadership of the Democratic party to endorse one course of action, regardless of potential political reasons, while their most important political candidate endorses another. That's a mischaracterization. Who has been pushing for the reinstated draft recently? Nobody in Washington -- not Rangel, not Hollings, not Bush, not Rumsfeld -- not even as political theater. The bills were introduced before the war started. The press covered this modest proposal for about a week, and that was that. It's going on two years now, and the bill is resting soundly in the Congressional hopper. Edwards's insinuation is obviously designed to revive some sort of media coverage on Iraq as a campaign issue. (Anyone else see the influence of the Clinton team here?) It's unfortunate that he's using an urban legend, but just look at the competition's bag of tricks. It's also unfortunate that Kerry/Edwards are still relying on these sort of flanking maneuvers, instead of turning and "facing the fire" of the Iraq question. If the Democratic Convention speech is any guide, then I suspect Kerry wants to save his "A" material for the best opportunity -- the debate. I hope, for the sake of healthy national discourse, that the (current) war becomes the major issue. Wouldn't elections better fit the democratic ideal if campaigning was limited to a six-month-long series of mandatory debates, instead of the endless whistle stops and shitty little gripes like this? Who do I call about that.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 23:58:48 -0800

Also, it just doesn't make any sense for the leadership of the Democratic party to endorse one course of action, regardless of potential political reasons, while their most important political candidate endorses another. I appreciate where you're coming from, but this actually does make sense. The draft might very well be the best way to respond to the Bush policy, which has stretched the military thing. With Bush gone and a new policy in place, perhaps then the draft won't be a necessary measure. It's not as if Democrats in Congress are saying "We need to do X today" while Kerry is saying "We need to do Y today." What Edwards is saying here is that under a completely different scenario, we'd be able to avoid a draft entirely. And wouldn't that scenario be nice? Let's get there.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:51:44 -0800

The draft might very well be the best way to respond to the Bush policy, which has stretched the military thing. Especialy if they plan more preemptions during a second term. Is the draft the inevitable price of hegemony?

By: quonsar

quonsar — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 01:01:21 -0800

so many people unliberated, so many more missions to accomplish...

By: benjh

benjh — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:24:35 -0800

I always thought all those draft legislations were intended as scare tactics in order to say, "ok, it's on the board. If we keeep going the way we are, things are going to fall apart, and we'll be coming for your sons."

By: twine42

twine42 — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:46:57 -0800

re: snopes that post still misses a lot. I remember a news article from the time when one FBI guy was moaning that they jot just ten minutes with each Saudi before they left. That contradicts the statement that the FBI were "all over that plane". I don't think I'll trust anyone on political stuff, if that's okay. I'll leave snopes to debunk the use of Coke to clean engines...

By: MattD

MattD — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 06:06:05 -0800

Seeting aside that no one actually wants a draft, the whole draft scare seems to be based upon an faulty, or at least unproven, premise, that recruiters would be unable to meet increased new enlistment levels. Recruiters have managed to meet their goals quite well for the past three years, during which time every volunteer was entirely aware of the real risk of combat. In that time, the military has historically high standards both for new enlisted men and for new officers, standards vastly higher than those which applied for recruiting soldiers in World War II, for example. Should a need arise for more troops, there's no evidence that recruitment couldn't meet the challenge based on current factors. If they started to fall short, adjusting standards closer to, but still well above, the historical means, would open the door further. The government could also rejigger the entry levels of military service. Right now, the military is set up with an officer-enlisted dichotomy appropriate for a time when only a small portion of the population obtained college educations. Now we have millions of people going to college who aren't officer material (and would exceed the numer of officers required by any measure), but who see themselves, or are seen by the military as, overqualified for the lowest-grade level enlistments. If the military could find an intelligent way to channel those people in, that could make a huge difference both in quantity and quality.

By: mikeh

mikeh — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:24:04 -0800

Recruiters have managed to meet their goals quite well for the past three years, during which time every volunteer was entirely aware of the real risk of combat. To my mind, their goals should be a lot higher, then. It's ridiculous how many National Guard troops are currently in Iraq despite the fact that they were supposed to be switched out long ago. I can understand deploying troops from the guard when there's a necessity for more people than the armed forces can immediately provide, but keeping them there longer than promised and making them return after short trips home is a little bit beyond the job description.

By: acrobat

acrobat — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:00:58 -0800

Fuck! If it's inevitable for good ol' US of A becoming a militaristic nation, then it's a sorry thing not to have gone along with Hitler. At least the Germans are a lot more efficient and effective.

By: mr.marx

mr.marx — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:32:33 -0800

plus: hugo boss uniforms!

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:41:04 -0800

eatitlive Wouldn't elections better fit the democratic ideal if campaigning was limited to a six-month-long series of mandatory debates, instead of the endless whistle stops and shitty little gripes like this? One of the advantages of the Canadian model of unscheduled elections is campaign time is short. A whole election cycle is only a couple of months and there isn't a lot of pre-positioning to peak at the right time because no one knows when that time will be. Can't see americans going for it though. Too many enjoy the election game. homunculus Especialy if they plan more preemptions during a second term. Is the draft the inevitable price of hegemony? Form a foreign legion as an alternative?

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:00:37 -0800

but keeping them there longer than promised and making them return after short trips home is a little bit beyond the job description. The National Guard units are sometimes the first to ship. In WWII many walking the Baton March were National Guardsman.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:08:37 -0800

acrobat - a lot of Americans did, in essence, go along with Hitler. Just not any of the ones fighting and dying on the front lines. But, American capitalism built Hitler's war machine, and Hitler might not have had the capability to launch his invasions in Europe but for I.G.Farben's acquisition - from the Rockefeller owned Standard Oil Company, of the patents and technology for the production of synthetic gasoline from coal. Oil remained one of the limit factors for the German war effort throughout WW2.

By: jmccorm

jmccorm — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:29:28 -0800

Forget being a CO. Be Bi.

By: kablam

kablam — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 09:41:35 -0800

Historical note: Woodrow Wilson promised not to have conscription, or to get involved in a "foreign war" (WWI). FDR promised that conscription would be limited to only 1 year for WWII. His draft lasted through Truman's Korean War and Kennedy/Johnson's Vietnam War, until finally ended by Nixon.

By: mkultra

mkultra — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:30:18 -0800

Fuck! If it's inevitable for good ol' US of A becoming a militaristic nation, then it's a sorry thing not to have gone along with Hitler. At least the Germans are a lot more efficient and effective. Wow, zero to Godwin in 10 seconds...

By: crabtreecharles

crabtreecharles — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:32:59 -0800

scarabic: To summarize your post - and feel free to let me know if I'm wrong here: It makes sense for the Democratic representatives to threaten the draft, because of our growing military involvement. It also makes sense for Edwards to cry out against it, as we wouldn't need such a policy in a new administration. Okay, so let me get this straight. The Democrats raise the spectre of a draft, and threaten to use it if Bush gets elected. If not, fine, there won't be a draft. That's kind of like holding the votes of concerned mothers hostage.

By: mkultra

mkultra — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:24:44 -0800

Hey, if Cheney can go around making "out of context implications" that a Kerry-Edwards presidency will result in another domestic terror attack, I don't have any problem with tactics like this. Kid gloves are off.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:25:53 -0800

GIs claim threat by Army: Soldiers say they were told to re-enlist or face deployment to Iraq

By: jonp72

jonp72 — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:32:46 -0800

since two bills (two years since last action on both, almost) are being pointed to as enablers of a potential draft, it is probably worth noting that the sponsors of those two bills are Democrats. I don't think the majority of Democrats actually support a draft. The reason Democrats introduced the bills was to put Republicans on the spot. If you were a Republican who wanted to have a draft, the smart thing to do would be to wait until George W. Bush is a lame duck. By introducing bills on the draft, Charles Rangel and other Democrats in Congress close off that option for the Republicans. It's actually quite smart political strategizing IMHO.

By: skallas

skallas — Thu, 16 Sep 2004 15:54:32 -0800

>The Democrats raise the spectre of a draft Rangel's bill is taken as seriously as Bush's credibility. Its bullshit "show politics." Rangel pushes the bill every year. As far as "democracts" go, is this their platform? Do they caucaus together for the draft? You might as well be talking about how Democrat Zell Miller represents all democrats.

By: dejah420

dejah420 — Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:29:37 -0800

Bush doesn't want a freaking draft, he wants to be widely seen to be unable to re-implement the draft (they'll blame pinko bleeding heart liberals) to give total cover to the real intention: the outsourcing and privatization of military functions to companies like Halliburton and others. They're already there - Bush and Co want them to be the only ones there. posted by mikel Wow...I hadn't even thought of that. but everyone knew someone from the Guard who was there, and many knew four or more Guardsmen who were serving 'in country'. Agreed. I know of many more guardsmen than actual military who have been mustered up. I don't know the charter of the reserves, but it sure seems to me that they shouldn't be the first ones in and last ones out....which seems to be the case now. GIs claim threat by Army: Soldiers say they were told to re-enlist or face deployment to Iraq -homunculus Jebuz. That's unreal.