Baby,
Brrrrrrr – feel that draft??
Oh, no worries, Citizen — they’re just “thinking about it” [… un huh … right. Like they’re just “thinking about” striking Iran in the Spring … recommended read here.].
Here’s a short collection of recruiting woes, articles from AP and the Times about the selective service folks looking over their process to “close the loopholes” — and the last piece reflects the mood of the nation. In Oregon, the question is — Would you send your relative to Iraq?
Dubby and Stepford-Laura fielded that question the other day:
The Twins and the War
Dan Froomkin, WaPo
Incidentally, People finally popped the question the White House press corps has been too timid to ask.
-
“This year, we invited readers on our Web site to ask you questions. Here’s one: Nina Frazier of New Braunfels, Texas, asks: If you believe in the war, why didn’t you encourage your own daughters to fight for your country? Or did you?
“THE PRESIDENT: I believe Americans can contribute to the security and well-being of our country in a variety of ways. That’s why we have a volunteer army. What we say to young people is that if you want to serve your country you can do so in the military, or you can do so by teaching children in inner-city Washington, D.C., like one of our daughters did. Or you can help form education programs in New York City, like our (other) daughter. There are all kinds of ways to serve.”
Later, a follow-up, of sorts:
“Are your daughters coming home for Christmas?
“Mrs. Bush: They are. Jenna is working with an international organization in Central and South America about education policy. And Barbara is working for a museum in the education department.”
Well — there ya go … educational deferments still acceptable to those who can afford them. And while I doubt there will be more than scant public support for such a program, clearly this nation isn’t ready to send its kids, the kids aren’t ready to go … and experience tells me that nothing would bring the public into the streets quicker.
The buzz … brrrrr!
Jude
Too little, too late
Despite being armed with fat cash incentives, recruiters may not be able to meet Bush’s call for a bigger Army — even if they keep lowering standards for new recruits.
Mark Benjamin, Salon
Dec. 22, 2006
Reversing his long-held opposition to increasing the permanent size of the U.S. military, President Bush is now considering calling for an addition of up to 70,000 troops. But with the Army already in an uphill battle to meet its current recruitment targets, many military experts fear Bush’s expansion plans are way overdue and can be met only by lowering the standards for Army recruits — including those with criminal records. Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense under Reagan and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, summed up Bush’s notion of a bigger Army this way: “Good idea, five years too late.”
Bush is belatedly joining the ranks of many retired generals, military experts and some members of Congress who have been pushing for a substantial increase in the U.S. ground forces for years. Retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the Army’s 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004 and 2005, said it has long been painfully obvious that the military is “far too small to accomplish what it is being asked to do.”
The expansion is desperately needed but “should have been done before we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq,” lamented David Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. Now it may be too late.
Last year, the Army missed its recruiting goal by the biggest gap since 1979. It met its quota this year, in part by lowering standards. The Army has nearly doubled the percentage of recruits it will accept who score badly on aptitude tests and increased the maximum enlistment age from 35 to 42. It has also admitted more recruits who previously would not have made the grade for criminal, medical or moral reasons. In 2005, 17 percent (21,880 new soldiers) qualified under such waivers, a 42 percent increase since the pre-Iraq year of 2000.
The Army says that the waiver program simply gives young people who made mistakes a second chance. But the matter is not academic. In an extreme example, Pvt. Steven Green, the soldier in federal prison under charges that he raped and killed a 14-year-old girl in Iraq and murdered three of her family members, got into the Army with a waiver. He had three criminal convictions and a history of substance abuse. Segal said that to expand the Army anytime soon might mean that the ranks will be filled with “more people with criminal records.”
In addition to lowering standards, the Army has dramatically increased the number of recruiters in the field. But signs indicate that they are increasingly desperate. The Army briefly suspended recruiting efforts completely in May 2005 after receiving reports that recruiters were forging documents, helping young people dupe the drug-testing system and asking teens to lie to their parents.
And the recruiters are already armed with dramatically sweetened incentives for those who are willing to sign up. New recruits may now be eligible for a $40,000 cash bonus for putting their name on the dotted line. Eli Flyer, a former senior manpower analyst for the Pentagon, said that, “to meet its quota of 80,000 new recruits annually, the Army has pulled out all the stops.”
Even if recruitment weren’t so challenging, as it has been during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, it would still take at least until 2008 to recruit and train enough new troops to substantially increase the number of units on the ground in Iraq. And it would be very expensive — roughly $1.2 billion a year for each additional 10,000 troops, according to military experts.
Former generals such as Batiste say the military has paid a higher price for not investing early in a bigger Army. “We went to war on the cheap in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we asked our military to do a number of tasks which should have been done by other departments and agencies in our government, and we inconvenienced the American people as little as possible.”
There is a sad symmetry to the president’s belated consideration of a bigger Army and his recent mulling of possible new strategies on Iraq. Just as the president’s strategic options had dwindled precipitously by the time he decided to change course in Iraq, so the expanded recruiting effort he may endorse at this late date will be severely hampered by the disincentive posed by four years of a brutal and seemingly unproductive war.
Agency to Test Military Draft Machinery
Kasie Hunt, AP
Friday, December 22, 2006
The Selective Service System is planning a comprehensive test of the military draft machinery, which hasn’t been run since 1998.
The agency is not gearing up for a draft, an agency official said Thursday. The test itself would not likely occur until 2009.
Meanwhile, the secretary for Veterans Affairs said that “society would benefit” if the U.S. were to bring back the draft and that it shouldn’t have any loopholes for anyone who is called to serve. VA Secretary Jim Nicholson later issued a statement saying he does not support reinstituting a draft.
The Selective Service “readiness exercise” would test the system that randomly chooses draftees by birth date and the network of appeals boards that decide how to deal with conscientious objectors and others who want to delay reporting for duty, said Scott Campbell, Selective Service director for operations and chief information officer.
“We’re kind of like a fire extinguisher. We sit on a shelf” until needed, Campbell said. “Everyone fears our machine for some reason. Our machine, unless the president and Congress get together and say, ‘Turn the machine on’ … we’re still on the shelf.”
The administration has for years forcefully opposed bringing back the draft, and the White House said Thursday that its position had not changed.
A day earlier, President Bush said he is considering sending more troops to Iraq and has asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to look into adding more troops to the nearly 1.4 million uniformed personnel on active duty.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, increasing the Army by 40,000 troops would cost as much as $2.6 billion the first year and $4 billion after that. Service officials have said the Army wants to increase its force by 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers and the Marine Corps would like 5,000 more troops.
The unpopular war in Iraq, where more than 2,950 American troops have already died, complicates the task of finding more recruits and retaining current troops - to meet its recruitment goals in recent years, the Army has accepted recruits with lower aptitude test scores.
In remarks to reporters in New York, Nicholson recalled his own experience as a company commander in an infantry unit that brought together soldiers of different backgrounds and education levels. He said the draft “does bring people from all quarters of our society together in the common purpose of serving.”
Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat who has said minorities and the poor share an unfair burden of the war, plans to introduce a bill next year to reinstate the draft.
House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has said that reinstating the draft would not be high on the Democratic-led Congress’ priority list, and the White House said Thursday that no draft proposal is being considered.
Planning for the Selective Service exercise, called the Area Office Mobilization Prototype Exercise, is slated to begin in June or July of next year for a 2009 test. Campbell said budget cuts could force the agency to cancel the test, which he said should take place every three years but hasn’t because of funding constraints.
Hearst Newspapers first reported the planned test for a story sent to its subscribers for weekend use.
The military drafted people during the Civil War and both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. An agency independent of the Defense Department, the Selective Service System was reincorporated in 1980 to maintain a registry of 18-year-old men, but call-ups have not occurred since the Vietnam War.
Associated Press writers Sara Kugler in New York and Devlin Barrett in Washington contributed to this report.
Flurry of Calls About Draft, and a Day of Denials
ERIC LICHTBLAU, NYT
December 23, 2006
WASHINGTON, Dec. 22 — As the de facto media contact for the Selective Service System, Dick Flahavan is the Maytag repairman of government press people. With the military draft out of business since 1973, the Selective Service just doesn’t get a lot of calls these days.
But by midday Friday, Mr. Flahavan’s office had fielded dozens of inquiries, not just from reporters but from some anxious parents as well, all with some variation of the same urgent question: Are you reinstituting the draft?
So adamant was the denial that Mr. Flahavan, a bit beleaguered, had his staff members post an unplanned update Friday morning at the top of Selective Service’s Web site: “No Draft on Horizon!â€
What prompted all this was a Hearst wire service article noting that the Selective Service was making plans for a “mock†draft exercise that would use computerized models to determine how, if necessary, the government would get some 100,000 young adults to report to their local draft boards.
The mock computer exercise, last carried out in 1998, is strictly routine, Selective Service officials said, and it will not actually be run until 2009 — if at all. The exercise has been scheduled several times in the last few years, only to be scuttled each time because of budget and staffing problems, and Mr. Flahavan said he would not be surprised if it was canceled this time around, too.
No matter. With President Bush saying that he wants to increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps, the military strained near the breaking point and the secretary of veterans affairs suggesting publicly this week that a reconstituted draft could “benefit†the country, even the notion of a mock exercise seemed to strike a nerve.
Since the start of the war in Iraq, some Democrats and Internet bloggers have been stirring up talk of a “secret plan†by the Bush administration to resume the draft, and the mere mention of the idea summons Vietnam-era images of birthday-generated draft lotteries and draft evaders fleeing to Canada.
Mr. Flahavan, an associate director of the Selective Service who has worked there for nearly two decades, has seen fears of a draft enflamed before — most notably at the start of the Persian Gulf war in 1991 and the start of the Iraq war in 2003, as anxious parents would call to ask what effect their son’s heart murmur would have on his draft status. He said he understood the anxiety caused by this week’s latest round of reports, even if he found the whole thing somewhat irksome.
“People think, ‘Aha, they’re having an exercise, dusting off the plans, a draft must be right around the corner,’ †he said.
The reality, said Mr. Flahavan, who spent most of Friday tamping down the fears, is that “this is much ado about nothing.â€
“None of that is accurate,†he said.
White House officials did their part to dampen the speculation as well.
“The president’s position has not changed,†said Trey Bohn, a spokesman for the White House. “He supports an all-volunteer military, and the administration is not considering reinstating the draft.â€
Although senior military officers agree that the armed forces are stretched, they also agree that a return to the draft is not the best way to fill the ranks. Draftees, they say, are not as motivated as volunteers, and tend to leave as soon as possible, after spending much of their time in costly training. Re-enlistment rates are much higher among volunteers.
Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York, has championed the idea of bringing back the draft, calling attention to what he sees as social and economic inequities in the volunteer military. The House rejected his bill in 2004, by 402 votes to 2. Mr. Rangel has said he will try again, but other Democratic leaders have been cool to the idea.
The exercise planned for 2009 would run computerized models to assign random lottery picks by birthday and simulate the processes for notifying those selected and for lodging conscientious objector claims.
William A. Chatfield, director of the Selective Service, said Friday that “we try to send out a signal of strength that we’re prepared.†The Selective Service, he said, needs to be ready “if something totally unforeseen should come upon us.â€
But for now, the chances of that happening are “very, very, very low,†Mr. Chatfield said. “There’s nothing even being discussed in a remote fashion, but you have people trying to create fear when there’s nothing there.â€
Thom Shanker contributed reporting.
Would you send your relative to Iraq? Wu asks
War - The Oregon delegation’s tenor previews what the president faces with a new Congress
JEFF KOSSEFF, The Oregonian
Saturday, December 23, 2006
WASHINGTON — As Rep. David Wu visited wounded soldiers in the National Naval Medical Center this week, he thought about President Bush considering a move to send more troops to Iraq.
Wu fears the White House will quietly roll out the “temporary surge” over the holidays, as if it were a company marketing a new product.
“We need to focus on whether we would choose to send our own son or daughter, our own wife or our own husband off for a temporary surge in Iraq,” said Wu, D-Ore. “If we wouldn’t do that, then should we permit this administration to roll out a potential product like that?”
Most of the Democrat-dominated Oregon congressional delegation is adamantly opposed to a temporary increase in troops in Iraq. Instead, they want to reduce the U.S. presence in the region and improve diplomacy.
Their opposition to Bush’s Iraq policy provides a glimpse of what the White House must contend with next month, when Democrats take control of Congress.
And Bush can no longer count on Oregon Republican Sen. Gordon Smith to support escalating the Iraq war. Smith, who voted to send troops to Iraq and was a firm supporter of the war, said Friday that he opposes a troop surge: “I believe it’s too little and too late for that.”
All five Democratic Oregon members of Congress voted against using force in Iraq four years ago. Yet Democrats have had little impact on war policy.
Next month, their views will matter more. In a news conference Wednesday, Bush said he will wait to hear from new Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the military and diplomats before deciding whether to send more troops to Iraq.
“We’ll listen to ideas from every quarter. We’ll change our strategy and tactics to meet the realities on the ground,” Bush said.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said Bush should start reducing troop levels.
“You’ve got to start bringing some of our people home in order to send a message that the Iraqis must make tough choices,” Wyden said.
“They’re not going to do it as long as we still convey that this is an indefinite, open-ended commitment.”
Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., said the factions have been fighting for more than 1,400 years and a temporary surge in troops won’t solve that problem.
“Bush seems determined to provide the illusion of a major change in strategy while he’s following the same delusional course,” DeFazio said.
The United States should begin scaling back by bringing home National Guard and reserves, said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore.
“I don’t know how anybody can talk to our personnel over the last three years and not get a sense of the pain and the frustration,” Blumenauer said.
The United States, Blumenauer said, must also begin having discussions with countries such as Iran and Syria.
“You have to talk to some of the people who have influence in the region, even if you don’t like them,” Blumenauer said.
DeFazio said he hopes Democrats will exert more influence over Iraq policy, but he noted that fewer than 110 House members last year co-sponsored a resolution to withdraw troops from Iraq.
Hearings possible
Although Bush is commander-in-chief, Congress may increase pressure by conducting aggressive oversight hearings.
“The Senate just hasn’t done the kind of detailed, focused oversight on the issues surrounding this,” Wyden said.
The Oregon delegation’s two Republicans — Smith and Rep. Greg Walden — voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq.
Smith gained national attention this month for his speech criticizing Bush’s handling of Iraq, calling the war “absurd.”
When asked about Smith’s speech, DeFazio said that it was obvious four years ago that Bush was intent on invading Iraq regardless of whether the country harbored weapons of mass destruction.
“It’s pretty easy to oppose the war now when those of us who spoke out against the war, went to the same classified briefings as every other member of Congress, saw through the charade and the facade,” DeFazio said.
Many Oregon Democrats have echoed similar sentiments about Smith’s speech, noting he is up for re-election in 2008. Smith dismisses the criticism as “their job.”
“To me, this is not about politics,” Smith said. “This is about life and death and war and peace and the future security of our country.”
Smith said he will continue exerting pressure through private contacts with the White House.
“Obviously they’re very mindful of me right now,” Smith said. He declined to say whether he has spoken with President Bush about his speech.
Smith wouldn’t comment on specific proposals without first seeing the details. He indicated he would not support an immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq.
“I’m calling for a repositioning of troops in Iraq,” Smith said. “I think we still have a very real interest in taking on the jihadists coming across the borders from Iran, Syria and some from Saudi Arabia.”
Walden couldn’t be reached this week. In a written statement issued Dec. 6 after the Iraq study group report, he supported a change in strategy to pursue diplomacy.
“It is clear that mistakes have been made since the invasion, not least our assessment of the Iraqis’ capacity to establish a stable, democratic society after 30 years of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship,” Walden said.
What’s right and good doesn’t come naturally. You have to stand up and fight for it - as if the cause depends on you, because it does. Allow yourself that conceit - to believe that the flame of Democracy will never go out as long as there’s one candle in your hand.
~ Bill Moyers
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.) movie tits freeincest free movies xxxyoung movies freeblowjob gagging moviesmovies gay rapesapphic movies grouphentai movies gayhome theater design movie Map
Add comment December 23rd, 2006