PNAC: Increase troops in Iraq! Bush agrees, spends $28 m extra on SSS

[Dems Will Win]

Even though the CBO report said we "cannot sustain American troop levels in Iraq for much longer without breaking the Army", the head of PNAC, Gary Schmitt, wants to use every last Marine, Coast Guard, Special Ops and Reserve soldier there is for Turkey-Shoot duty.

So PNAC doesn't have to state the obvious. That PNAC needs the military DRAFT re-instated to accomplish its goals of domination over the world's oil supply--to make the world safe for Halliburton and Ken Lay and the boys. Open talk of a 2005 DRAFT would be the end of the Bush Presidency.

So the Bushies are quietly spending $28 million to get the first draft lottery ready to draw on June 15, 2005. All the re-elected Prez has to do then is speak to a Joint Session on April 1, 2005: "You are either with the USA or you are with the terrorists. We will never cut and run. That's why I am asking the Congress to re-instate the draft--to hold onto Iraq. We must not fail in Iraq".

We only invaded Iraq because of PNAC's plan. We all know now WMDs had nothing to do with it. That's the only thing that makes sense of this. And if they don't succeed in Iraq, PNAC has suffered a grievous blow. Iraq will make or break PNAC.

REMEMBER THAT WHEN REPORTERS ASKED RUMSFELD WHAT ADMINISTRATION PLANS WERE FOR THE FUTURE, THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REFFERED THEM TO THE PNAC WEB SITE!! (Check it out sometime if you want to make your hair stand on end with no need for static electricity or perms http://www.newamericancentury.org)

From ABC NEWS on March 5, 2003:<i>

"Tonight ABC News correspondent Jackie Judd will explore this conspiracy theory, and the influence and role of the Project for the New American Century. The Project for the New American Century. Never heard of it? Well, don't feel bad. Few have. But have you heard of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld or Paul Wolfowitz? Back in 1997, those three out-of-office politicians and several other like-minded, mostly conservatives, were frustrated with American foreign policy. So they formed this new organization... Today, a 76-page paper written by the organization reads like a blueprint for the policy being carried out largely by Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Is this a case of democracy in action? Influential thinkers who became policy makers? Or is it, as some international critics of the White House's policy on Iraq have argued, a secretive organization pulling the strings of the President, with an imperialistic goal of dominating the world?"</i>

If Bush can somehow get re-elected, I fear he will only listen to PNAC and re-instate the DRAFT on April 1, 2005, with the first Lottery on June 15, 2005. On September 5, from the head of PNAC himself, military instructions were given to all, which it looks like have RECENTLY BEEN AGREED TO BY BUSH:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20030905.htm

<snip>
September 5, 2003

MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS

FROM: GARY SCHMITT

SUBJECT: More Troops for Iraq


MORE TROOPS FOR IRAQ

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says that, on the security front in Iraq, "it seems to me that the trajectory we're on is a good one." But it is hard to find anyone else who agrees with that assessment. Certainly not the British - who now are thinking about increasing their force levels in Iraq. Certainly not the Shiites - who, for lack of security, are now discussing how to reconstitute their own militias. Certainly not even U.S. commanders - who, if you listen carefully to what they are saying, admit that there are not enough front-line troops to handle what needs to be done in Iraq.

Secretary Rumsfeld's response is that we need to turn things over to the Iraqis as soon as possible. Sounds fine in theory or even over the long run. Yet there is no way to train a large, effective and loyal Iraqi force in the time frame required. Despite this reality, the secretary resists any idea that more U.S. troops are needed.

In doing so, Secretary Rumsfeld puts the president's policy of building a decent and democratic Iraq at risk. At the moment, there are only three alternatives: one, we don't add troops and risk not being able both to provide security in Iraq and conduct the kind of counterinsurgency operations required to root out our adversaries; two, we add even more foreign troops only after giving over Iraq's management to the UN, thereby inviting the dysfunction of the UN into the process of rebuilding Iraq; or three, we augment the size of U.S. forces there, increasing even more the overall burden on the American military. Unattractive as this last alternative might be, it is the only dependable way to secure the president's vision for Iraq.

Nor is it impossible. The recent Congressional Budget Office study, which was widely reported as suggesting that we cannot sustain American troop levels in Iraq for much longer without breaking the Army, also makes it clear that it would be possible in the months ahead to add forces if we were willing to call on combat elements from the Marines, the National Guard and Special Forces equivalents. To be sure, this would be a difficult decision for the Pentagon and the White House to make and would call into question previous judgments by the administration about the proper size of the American military.



<snip>

Here's the official SSS page that shows how $28 million will be spent next year to make the draft lottery active within 75 days of March 31, 2005 (once Bush says "not gonna cut and run, not gonna do it!" and Congress votes to re-instate):

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

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)

Total=$28,290,000

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.

I'm all Verklempt! Talk Amongst Yourselves!

[Dems Will Win]

1. Just found this goodie on the PNAC site, again more troops, on patrol

Remember these guys have Bush's ear now and always have:

The Right Fight Now: Counterinsurgency, Not Caution, Is the Answer in Iraq
Tom Donnelly & Gary Schmitt
Washington Post
October 26, 2003

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20031026.htm

<snip>

One lesson: Pacification and counterinsurgency campaigns are manpower-intensive. As military analyst Andrew Krepinevich argued in "The Army and Vietnam" -- yet another part of the counterinsurgency canon -- the effort "should be organized primarily around light infantry units" that must "patrol intensively in and around populated areas," interposing themselves between insurgents and the people.

Active patrolling is also essential for developing the human intelligence needed to distinguish the good from the bad. Only when pacification of a given area is well underway will the military get the human intelligence needed for larger sweeps and raids. Until local residents believe they will be secure over the long term, they will not be forthcoming with information.

In Iraq, that would mean that coalition forces, assisted by newly trained Iraqi police and soldiers, would have to swamp a given area in order to root out insurgents and their supporting infrastructure. In doing so, coalition forces would provide a shield behind which reconstruction can take place. To win the "hearts and minds" of the uncommitted Iraqis, security, political and economic reconstruction must go hand in hand.

Once a particular city or area had been pacified, the military and reconstruction teams could move on to the next hot spot, leaving behind adequate local Iraqi forces, with small teams from U.S. special forces, to maintain security. Gradually, whole regions would come under control and the "safe havens" for the insurgents would dry up. Like oil drops that strike a cloth, security would seep out to cover a wider and wider area.

However, a real counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq entails risks. It would concentrate forces in the Sunni regions that are the hot spots. Rather than reducing the U.S. presence, it might require putting an even greater American face on the war in those places. That could mean that, in the short term, the Pentagon might have to put on hold its plans to reduce the number of troops in Iraq to lessen the burden on the Army. The Marine Corps also might need to send fresh units back into Iraq.

A successful counterinsurgency campaign also would require American ground forces to carry out tasks and operations that today's "transforming" military, which increasingly is trading manpower for precision firepower, finds hard to perform. As one Army colonel in Iraq recently said to a New York Times reporter: "We are not trained to fight a war like this. We're training to fight an army face to face, to engage in direct combat, an enemy we can see." But that's not the kind of enemy we now face in Iraq.

Yet these risks pale in comparison with the risk of failure to defeat the insurgency in Iraq. Dissatisfied with the pace of Iraq's reconstruction, President Bush has recently given his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, responsibility for overseeing that effort. But he cannot stop there. He should ask whether his Pentagon has a plan to win the conflict.

<snip>

[oasis]

2. Bush believes he's on a mission from God. The sacrifice of lives for PNAC

doesn't even phase him. Rove is going to keep this under wraps until after the election.

Draft age men and women beware. The volunteer numbers will drop off dramatically in the coming months. Uncle Sam wants YOU. Register to vote and remove Bush or register for the draft.

You had better believe it.

[soothsayer]

3. Hey, here's where 'no gays in the military' can work FOR draftees

Maybe we'll see a rash of draft age kids becoming 'gay'---at least as far as the military is concerned. Can't be drafted, right? hee hee

[Dems Will Win]

4. Just call the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy fellows, they'll fix you up!

[dusty64]

8. Scary.

They have GOT to go, every last one of them and hopefully prosecution will follow.

[Dems Will Win]

5. The PNAC Statement of Principles, signed by Dick, Don and Jeb

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

PNAC STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

[oasis]

6. # 2 "consequence"

"we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interest and values".

France, Russia, Canada, Germany and most of our "democratic allies" were turned off by Bush's high handed diplomacy in his pursuit of WMD in Iraq. Additionally, their early awareness of PNAC objectives made them skeptical of Bush's real motives.

In any case, PNACers hadn't figured that Chimpy's lack of class/style would greatly hinder his ability to marshall forces from other countries.

The draft is plan b.

[Dems Will Win]

7. I agree

Plan b has arrived

The first DRAFT LOTTERY would then be June 15, 2005!!

[Cocoa]

9. there's a mixture of weak and strong

Most of it I wouldn't argue with at all, I have no doubt PNAC would want a draft. Why wouldn't they?

But the idea that that SSS site is proof of anything is weak. It looks like contigency planning that of course they would do.

And what did you mean by this part, in caps. Did this literally happen:

REMEMBER THAT WHEN REPORTERS ASKED RUMSFELD WHAT ADMINISTRATION PLANS WERE FOR THE FUTURE, THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REFFERED THEM TO THE PNAC WEB SITE!!

Did Rummy literally refer reporters to the PNAC website? Was he being facetious?

[Dems Will Win]

10. He was serious.

Plus found this on the PNAC site that shows why PNAC feels the Services needs more soldiers (from 2001):

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20011031.htm

<snip>

At less than 475,000, today's active-duty Army is a shadow of its Gulf War self. In 1991, the Army had more than 900,000 soldiers on active duty. Though the Marine Corps has avoided such draconian manpower cuts -- today there are about 172,000 active Marines compared to just under 200,000 a decade ago -- its effort to modernize its equipment has all but stopped. Adequately rebuilding the Army, adding 50,000 soldiers to the active-duty roster and equipping them, would require approximately a 20 percent rise in the Army budget, about $15 billion per year in addition to the current $70 billion. Fleshing out the Marine Corps, chronically short of infantry, might require an additional 10,000 personnel; accelerating Marine modernization would cost approximately $5 billion per year.

While the size of the ground force needed to win in Afghanistan and Iraq depends on many factors, there is no doubt that both campaigns would involve large forces with significant firepower, mobility and the staying power to maintain stability long after the fighting was concluded. Light infantry is key in Afghanistan, heavy forces in Iraq, and large heliborne forces in both.

Over the past decade, discussions of defense requirements have focused far too narrowly on the issues of force "transformation." But now we are caught in a campaign in Afghanistan and, in time, a larger war in the Persian Gulf that demands the sustained projection of land forces in large numbers. Unless we bolster American land power -- and begin to do so now, in time to make a difference -- we may deprive ourselves of the capabilities needed to win this war on terrorism decisively and without putting our other security interests in the world at risk.

<snip>

See, in 2001 they already knew there would be "a larger war in the Persian Gulf that demands the sustained projection of land forces in large numbers"

[oasis]

11. No doubt those 2001 plans included troop numbers from the "old" coalition

that Poppy put together. As things stand right now,Junior won't be able to draw from those nations. And don't look for the Brits to contribute substantial forces to participate in the next round of empire building.