Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Top House Democrats to bar military draft plan!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
RiverStone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 01:20 PM
Original message
Top House Democrats to bar military draft plan!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A reinstatement of the military draft, being pushed by a senior Democrat, will not be slated for consideration in the House of Representatives, the chamber's newly elected top leaders said on Monday.

"We did not include that" in legislative plans for early next year, said Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who will be House majority leader when the new Congress convenes in January under Democratic control for the first time in 12 years.

New York Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel, who is in line to chair the House Ways and Means Committee next year, has renewed his call for the draft, saying the war in Iraq is being fought by American soldiers who disproportionately are from low-income families and minorities.

Over the weekend, Rangel said he would seek passage next year of the universal draft legislation he has long sought. "If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday.

Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California told reporters on Monday that she does not support reinstating the draft, which was suspended in 1973 near the end of the Vietnam War and replaced by the all-volunteer army.


http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-11-20T175623Z_01_N20280714_RTRUKOC_0_US-DRAFT.xml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Rangel can call a hearing on this bill
He chairs Ways and Means, which handles taxes, not the military. Is he on the relevant subcommittee or full committee that would consider draft legislation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kber Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. According to the article, Nancy agrees with you on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. It would be pretty dumb to call for a draft right now
'extra' for Iraq can come from the UN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheModernTerrorist Donating Member (645 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #2
35. you're missing the point
I think most people are missing the point here. Rangel is strongly AGAINST all this insanity, and voted against this LAST time he did it. If you notice, he basically said "well, if this administration plans on overstretching our troops, they should come from more than just the poor communities (where most of our military is currently coming from). The American people are saying "woah, wait a minute, maybe WAR shouldn't always be our first option when we're dealing with all these other nations. MAYBE we need someone in office who can actually TALK to these people, unlike our warmongering president." Rangel is a smart man and knows how to make a point. Too bad the point was missed by so many people around here :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smb Donating Member (761 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. Rangel Is An Idiot
Flapping his gums and generating a "DEMOCRATS WANT TO BRING BACK THE DRAFT" news cycle is only "smart" if he's actually a Pubbie mole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheModernTerrorist Donating Member (645 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #2
36. oops
I meant to post on the one below you. Sorry about that :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #2
40. I agree with your title but not your "explanation"
> It would be pretty dumb to call for a draft right now

Yep ... Rangel would need a little longer to explain the reasons
behind it rather than just giving the M$M a headline on a plate.

> 'extra' for Iraq can come from the UN

Piss off. The US broke it, not the UN.
The UK & Australia are (disgustingly) accomplices in these warcrimes
but the UN has had NOTHING to do with the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Either haul all of your people out or put more of your people into
the meat-grinder - your choice but either way it is nothing to do
with the UN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
3. No DUH.
Stupidest proposal out of the Democratic congress so far. Top Democratic leaders decide to not commit political suicide!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. Whew--that's a relief
Iraq is Bush's mess--let him call for a draft if he needs more troops. Suppose he'd decided to call your bluff, Charlie? You say that he wouldn't because it would be political suicide? Well, look at all the political HOMICIDE Bush has committed against those he believes have shown him up!

The Dems are the majority now, Charlie--you don't have to pull political "stunts" anymore.

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kber Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Good point about the stunts
I think that's what did the republican in really. They'd been in the minority for so long they were used to floating extreme ideas without worrying about someone actually trying to implement them. It's a good trick when you are a powerless minority and need to call attention to a problem. But when you are a majority, you can actually govern. Rangel has some good points, but now we have the power call hearings on the issues of military readiness and recuitment practices and all kinds of other things that we couldn't get attention on before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernsoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
5. Good, it's a horrible idea
Moving on this paln would cost Dems the youth vote for the next 20 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maryallen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
8. That's right, Steny: Go along to ...
Get along ... Don't rock the boat. Play nicely with others.

Continue to pretend it's a video war game happening over there in Iraq. Don't do ANYTHING to bring home the fact that REAL men and women are dying for a lie, and that in all probability, every single day we linger in Iraq, the good 'ole USA adds to its list of war crimes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
9. Good ole send-em-and-leave-em Steny. nt
Edited on Mon Nov-20-06 05:58 PM by BullGooseLoony
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Irreverend IX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 03:18 AM
Response to Reply #9
38. Another Nader voter?
Using the national political process to make points in an argument that no ordinary Americans are following is like firing a rifle out your door to kill moths. I'm relieved to see the Democrats are killing this thing in its infancy, otherwise it would utterly destroy our political chances. There are several hundred better legislative strategies to end the Iraq war than this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. Pelosi, Hoyer Say House Won't Consider Resuming Military Draft
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDQpwgZF_Rks&refer=home

Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- The two top House Democrats said they have no intention of bringing up legislation to resume the military draft.

The remarks by Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader-Elect Steny Hoyer come a day after Representative Charlie Rangel, a New York Democrat, said he plans to again introduce legislation to revive the draft when his party takes control of Congress in January.

``The speaker and I have discussed scheduling'' for the House next year, Hoyer said after a meeting today with Pelosi. ``It did not include'' the draft, he said.

``Mr. Rangel has long held this position,'' Pelosi said. ``It's not about a draft, it's about shared sacrifice in our country.''

``We have made very clear what our priorities are, and they're Six for '06,'' Pelosi said, naming the Democrats' plan to address what they call the middle class squeeze by raising the minimum wage, repealing the richest tax cuts and increasing education grants. ``Mr. Hoyer will be leading the action on the floor.''
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Thankfully,, these folks, unlike Rangel , are sane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Thank you doctor
For your psychological diagnosis!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Rangel is quite sane. If you want a republic, all citizens must
share in the responsibility of defending it. If you want an Empire with a Praetorian Guard, you will have something like our mercenary army of "volunteers".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShockediSay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #15
27. Except most of the Richy Rich, like W, find a way out nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #15
29. We do all share the responsibility
It's called paying taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #15
31. Sending more troops to fight the illegal war in Iraq is not defending this nation.
Iraq had nothing we needed to defend against in the first place.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #15
33. What Is Going On In Iraq IS NOT DEFENDING THE REPUBLIC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #15
37. Bullshit. How many wars did we start based on LIES or had nothing to do with our nations security?
Justify that, BUT MOST IMPORTANT, the American public DOES NOT want a draft, and that is what a Democracy is all about


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. And that's exactly how Rangel thought it would go imo. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. I'm glad Pelosi didn't let this get any traction.
One day's worth of "top democrat proposes a draft" headlines was enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. I didn't think it would go anywhere; Rangel was trying to make a
point and get people to think. I think he succeeded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. He got a bunch of DU'ers to fight each other.
But I think most Americans just read the headlines and now associate a "top Democrat" with proposing a draft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Let's ask the kids of the poor to fight to defend the interests
of the rich. Whatever . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Do you think that DU'ers have no children who would be affected by this?
I've never been willing for ANYONE's children to be fighting that war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Nor have I. I have been out in the streets on a daily and weekly basis
for the past five years. Rather than wage a battle over whose anti-war credentials are more impressive, let me ask you this: why should a republic (lower case 'r') depend on an all-volunteer force? That guarantees that children of privilege will never have to sacrifice at the same level as children of the poor and working class who are victims of the "poverty draft." I thought Democrats (upper case 'D') were about justice and fairness. . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Why should a republic have a system of conscription in place
that is effectively a form of slavery?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coalition_unwilling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Because the alterhnative (a mercenary army of "volunteers) is
in effect a Praetorian Guard, serving the interests of Empire but not the interests of the Republic. QED.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #22
30. Answer
why should a republic (lower case 'r') depend on an all-volunteer force?

Answer: Because an all volunteer force is significantly superior to a conscripted one.

QED
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smb Donating Member (761 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #22
42. Simple
why should a republic (lower case 'r') depend on an all-volunteer force?

Because that's the way things are done in a free society.

Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Another Bill C. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. With that off of the table,
The great unwashed can again concentrate on their favorite reality shows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. The American public just threw the Republicans out of office
in large part because of the Iraq debacle. It took a while, but they get it now.

They would have felt deeply betrayed if Rangel's idea had gotten any traction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lapfog_1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #10
25. Sometimes I despair at our Dems that we work so hard to elect.

Six for '06...

I think the voters put the Dems back into power not to see a roll back of tax cuts, or a hike in minimum wages, or any of the other agenda items.

I think the voters wanted two basic things... end the war in Iraq and restore our constitution by repealing the military commissions act and the Patriot Act.

After they address those two, then they can get on with the rest and, don't forget, the investigations that might lead to impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #10
26. DU SCOOP! MILITARY DRAFT ALERT!Mon Sep-13-04

Remember this???? came from our DU board in '04

A military draft planning document, recovered through the Freedom of Information Act, is now online at the Blatant Truth Web site:
http://blatanttruth.org/selective_service091304.pdf

Here is Blatant Truth's Draft page:
http://blatanttruth.org/draft.php

Please distribute this post and the official SSS draft document, the Feb. 11, 2003 “Issue Paper”, to all college newspaper editors, in LTTEs and mass e-mails to your personal lists.

This is a SPECIAL MILITARY DRAFT ALERT. In May, the Seattle Post Intelligencer published an article about a document they received through the Freedom of Information Act. It was revealed that the SSS is currently “designing procedures” for the implementation of a “Skills Draft” and had held a top-level meeting on it with Deputy Undersecretaries at the Defense Department. This draft would change the essential mission of the Selective Service and require “virtually every young American”, male and female ages 18-34, to register for the Skills Draft and list all the occupations they are proficient in to fill labor shortages throughout nearly the entire government. If enacted, the Skills Draft proposed in this FOI-recovered document would change America as we know it.

The Pentagon is suffering from immediate labor shortages. Recently, the inactive Ready Reserve had to be called up for the first time since the Gulf War to fill 5,600 job shortages in the Armed Forces. DoD said in the recent IRR callup “20% of the call-ups are truck drivers, 12% are supply specialists who can use a computer to track supplies, 10% are Humvee mechanics, 7% are administrative specialists and 6% are combat engineers” (USA Today, August 8, 2004).

Although Congress would have to approve new legislation to create a Skills Draft or reinstate the combat draft, Family Circle reported in its July 13 issue that Karl Rove has polled GOP members of Congress in September 2002 to see if they would support the President if he requests reinstatement. The Republicans said they would vote for the draft. They would likely support the new legislation needed to create the Skills Draft. While Bush and the Republicans are of course keeping the return of the draft and the new skills draft as quiet as possible, many anti-draft organizations have recently begun warning of a “Coming New Draft”.

The Issue Paper document was revealed through the Freedom of Information Act by Seattle Post Intelligencer reporter Eric Rosenberg, who wrote a partial explanation of it that was printed May 1, 2004:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/171522_draft01.h...

Rosenberg’s article was edited, however, and some key points about this document were omitted in the published article. What follows is a full explanation of the document. (Link to the document itself is at the top of the post)

This .PDF document is real, having been acknowledged by the DoD and the SSS when they said no action is being taken on it at the present time. However, given the current manpower shortages for certain skills and nurses, if Bush gets back in, expect all the options outlined in the Issue Paper to be implemented by the end of December of this year, and at the least a non-combat skills and medical draft to start next year, if not the male combat draft, ages 18-25.

Despite Rumsfeld saying the draft is not needed, this is the same neo-con administration that has repeatedly lied to and misled the American people. Draft-age youth and their families are left looking at a “long, hard slog” in Iraq (Rumsfeld secret memo), the neo-con plans to invade still more nations, and then having to take Rumsfeld and Cheney’s word not to worry about the draft, that they “are not considering it at this time.”

Although official word is that this secret list of options is not being implemented—the Issue Paper options have NOT been rejected and the 6-page proposal is rather sitting in the Pentagon, waiting. In addition, the SSS itself has said that it is “designing procedures” (Seattle PI, May 1, 2004) to implement the skills draft, meaning designing the compliance cards and the data fields needed to keep track of “virtually every young American” and their skills. Acting Director of the SSS Brodsky has also said the Skills Draft is the “top priority” of the Selective Service for 2004.

From the FOI document, we now know that on February 11, 2003, Charles Abell, the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and William Carr, Deputy Undersecretary for Military Personnel Policy, met with Lewis Brodsky, the Acting Director of the Selective Service and some other officials. This is the highest-level meeting you could have about the Selective Service, outside of Rumsfeld and his inner circle. They were there to discuss the urgent “issue paper” now revealed, which starts: “With known shortages of military personnel with certain critical skills, and with the need for the nation to be capable of responding to domestic emergencies as a part of Homeland Security Planning, changes should be made in the Selective Service System’s registration program and primary mission”.

Although it would require changes in current draft law, the far-reaching proposal shows how far the Republicans are going to plan and prepare for a huge expansion of the draft. The Issue Paper options include:

- Change the very mission of the SSS to become a massive conscription service in the War on Terror for the entire government.

- Conscript men and women in a critical skills non-combat draft up to age 34 with no deferments of any kind, except “essential community service” (like the Medical Draft).

- Allow a non-combat draft for shortages in critical skills, without calling a combat draft.

- Fill labor shortages of all kinds throughout not only DoD but the whole government, especially high-paying professionals like computer networking specialist or linguist.

- Create a massive database of “virtually every young American” ages 18 to 34. This database would be used to draft in war and to recruit in peacetime. State and even local governments would be given access to the names for recruitment and help in emergencies.

- Create a single-point, all-inclusive database, in which every young person would be forced to send in a “self-declaration” of all of their critical skills, chosen from a long list of occupations like the Armed Forces Specialty Code. The self-declaration is similar to IRS compliance and the filling out and signing of your tax forms. All young people would be required to keep the government updated if they acquired a new skill. SSS Compliance forms will be available at every Post Office. The usual penalties of imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine would apply to all non-registrants.

- A draft or recruitment could be for any one of the skills you self-declare on the compliance form, not your current or primary skill. This greatly increases your chance of being drafted if you are 18-34

- Bring the Medical Draft (HCPDS) up to speed and fully test it through readiness exercises.

- Reduce induction time from being able to deliver all inductees in 193 days down to just 90 days for skills inductees.

This secret paper urges the mission be changed “promptly”, meaning they really need it, it would draft for the Pentagon as well as the enormous Homeland Security branches as well as other government agencies, even state and local!

For obvious political reasons, the decision was made by Bush, Cheney and Rove to sit on this 6-page proposal until after the election in November. Yet the SSS was told to go ahead and begin “designing procedures” for the Skills Draft in 2004 and make it their “top priority”. It can be expected that if Bush gets back in, and the DoD and SSS are still asking for the Skills Draft, the “Next Steps” part of the document will be put into action and the most expansive option to change the SSS mission will be rapidly legislated.

In the secret planning meeting document, the next steps strongly recommended by SSS Acting Director Brodsky were:

1. “Promptly” redefine the SSS Mission to draft men and women up to age 34 for skills, and deliver them within 90 days or sooner to the Department of Defense. Program a massive database to be ready to enter millions of names of those registering their critical skills.

2. Expand mission to deliver personnel in skills draft to the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies, including FEMA, NSC, Border Patrol, INS, Customs, Corporation for National Service, Public Health Service and other federal, state and local government agencies.

3. Form interagency task force to provide Administration with recommendation on this skills draft for the entire DHS and the rest of the government.

4. Obtain White House Statement of Administration Policy on the future of the SSS.

5. Be prepared to market the skills draft, raising the non-combat age to 34 and the drafting of women to the Armed Services and Appropriations Committee.

This proposed expansion of the draft, forcing all people under 35 to register with the SSS, man or woman, is primarily proposed, according to the document, because the cost of providing contract professionals, like computer network specialists, would be “prohibitive”. In this way, the proposed Skills Draft would help preserve Bush’s massive tax cuts for the wealthy by lowering the massive budget deficits.

That’s the new Skills Draft and the secret document behind it. But what about the Combat Draft?

Selective Service has been registering young men for over twenty years and at any moment the President can go to Congress and ask them to reauthorize conscription for the male combat draft for ages 18-25. It doesn’t take much to imagine a re-elected Bush going to Congress and saying “We cannot cut and run from Iraq or the War on Terror. I need you to reauthorize conscription.”

And they would not have to pass a whole new draft law to do it. All that is needed is a “trigger resolution”, which could be passed in the dead of night—and bingo! No debate, no regular bill, just a short resolution passed quickly and the draft for men 18 to 25 is back.

That is why the Democratic draft legislation being offered by Rangel and Hollings is totally irrelevant. These are known protest bills and actually propose drafting women for the combat draft, just to make sure they will never see the light of day. Rangel and Hollings offered them to raise the issue and confront Bush. Hollings even said he wouldn’t vote for his own bill!

They are not needed—and the press and the Republicans will bring them up as red herrings to distract everyone from what is really going on: the Republicans, and the SSS are quietly, behind the scenes, oiling up the draft machinery—getting ready to reinstate for the Spring of 2005. Taken singly, each of the clues indicating the return and expansion of the draft might seem insignificant but when you add them all up with what the selective Service is doing to gear up the combat draft, a clear pattern emerges, leading to the inescapable conclusion that a Bush re-election will see not only a Skills Draft, but a return of the Combat Draft as well.

What is the proof? The government’s own document, the SSS Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2004:

http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

The Selective Service System, or the SSS, has for decades operated at a low level of readiness. Readiness Exercises are conducted on a multi-year cycle but historically these have been little more than getting draft board volunteers together and going over the procedures of what would happen under reinstatement and training new members every summer. And the draft boards themselves have become 80% vacant over the decades.

In the current 5-year cycle of exercises, however, the SSS is clearly ramping up the draft machinery to an unprecedented level.

-snip-

“Strategic Objective 1.2: Ensure a mobilization infrastructure of 56 State Headquarters,
442 Area Offices and 1,980 Local Boards are operational within 75 days of an authorized
return to conscription.”

Tie that to this objective:

“An annual report providing the results of the implementation of these performance
measures will be submitted by March 31, 2005.”

-snip-

75 days from March 31, 2005 is about June 15, 2005. According to the 2004 plan, the draft boards will be “operational” then, meaning that they will be set up in 1,980 local offices around the country. If Bush asks for reinstatement on April 1, Congress could pass it that night and the first batch of over one million 20 year-olds would face the national lottery as soon as that date, June 15, 2005.

Here is how the $28 million is being spent according to the official document. Although the Senate rejected the funding request to bump up the SSS budget to $28 million, the SSS says in one paragraph of the Performance Plan that budgets will be “adjusted” to cover the additional cost for 2004:

-snip-

“Strategic Goal 1: Increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the Manpower
Delivery Systems (Projected allocation for FY 2004 – $7,942,000)

Strategic Goal 2: Improve overall Registration Compliance and Service to the Public (Projected allocation FY 2004 – $8,769,000)

Strategic Goal 3: Enhance external and internal customer service
(Projected allocation for FY 2004 – $10,624,000)

Strategic Goal 4: Enhance the system which guarantees that each conscientious objector is properly classified, placed, and monitored. (Projected allocation for FY 2004 – $955,000)”

-snip-

In analyzing each of the 2004 goals in detail it is obvious that there are hidden “activation bombshells” in this so-called “Performance Plan”. Goal number 1 in particular brings the combat induction process up to 95% operational readiness, going so far as to actually hold a mock lottery drawing this year and to issue sample orders to report for the famous medical exam. The document does not reveal the day in 2004 the mock lottery is to be held.

In addition, the Medical Draft, or Health Care Personnel Delivery System (HCPDS in the document), is for the first time brought up to full readiness by next year. This draft would take men and women up to age 44 if they are doctors, nurses or one of 60-some medical specialties. No medical deferments allowed. Previous readiness exercises merely went over what would happen with HCPDS and updated the guide. The 2004 plan actually develops a readiness exercise for the Medical Draft that would be conducted next year. Plus HCPDS must be ready to conscript by June, being part of the system.

Goal number four is particularly ominous.

-snip-

“Strategic Objective 4.1: Ensure a mobilization infrastructure of 48 Alternative Service Offices and 48 Civilian Review Boards are operational within 96 days after notification of a return to induction.”

“Strategic Objective 4.2: Develop a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Alternative Service Employer Network to specifically identify organizations and associations who can, by law, participate in the Alternative Service Program. This network will provide jobs for ASWs at the local level. Prior to activation, SSS will develop a draft MOU for use when obtaining agreements with qualified employers at the local and national level.”

-snip-

For 31 years, the Conscientious Objector system, called the Alternative Service, has lain dormant. The 2004 plan also calls for this to be brought up to speed and to be ready to decide cases and place COs in the Alternative Service by July 6, 2005 (96 days after March 31, 2005). The SSS is even going so far as to draw up the SOPs, the Standard Operating Procedures which identify local employers eligible to receive cheap AS workers and to also draw up the actual MOU, the Memorandum of Understanding the employer must sign to get their CO workers and allow their mandatory attendance to be monitored. This is the last obstacle to be hurdled before the draft could actually be ready for quick activation under the law.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. I remember that
People around here were all worked up about something that in the end never came to pass...

Turns out that Bush isn't the one we should have been worried about---it was Rangel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
28. Good.
Even if he means well, this would likely backfire.

(And I don't like the message being sent - that we 'need' to fight in Iraq/Iran/NK. BULLSHIT. We don't need to fight one illegal war and start others.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Megahurtz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-20-06 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
34. Go go GO!!!
:bounce:

Please quash this shit and quick!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Azathoth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-21-06 05:43 AM
Response to Original message
39. Thank God
Edited on Tue Nov-21-06 05:44 AM by Azathoth
And someone tell Rangel that if he keeps shit like this up, he'll loose he chairmanship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC