US Re-instating the Draft??
Mar. 1st, 2004 01:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
icarusGovernment reinstating the *Draft?* Does somebody know if this is true or not?
I know from![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
wildernessguru (military analyst) that we need at least 150,000 troops to hold Iraq really, but what he believes this is about the dream to fulfill the cold war fantasy - the ability to fight on two fronts simultaneously. It's crazy, but the military still wants it. He says the goal is to get more combat forces instead of reservists.
- In North Korea we pulled our troops from dangerous positions so that they couldn't take out 40,000 of our troops with artillery.
- Also, a quiet deployment was sent to Guam. About 12-18 B-52s were sent there to be closer to North Korea.
Both of these actions are preludes to war. The correct term is "It puts you on a war footing." It's the equivalent of moving the 7th fleet a hundred miles off the shore of North Korea.
I know from
wildernessguru (military analyst) that we need at least 150,000 troops to hold Iraq really, but what he believes this is about the dream to fulfill the cold war fantasy - the ability to fight on two fronts simultaneously. It's crazy, but the military still wants it. He says the goal is to get more combat forces instead of reservists.- In North Korea we pulled our troops from dangerous positions so that they couldn't take out 40,000 of our troops with artillery.
- Also, a quiet deployment was sent to Guam. About 12-18 B-52s were sent there to be closer to North Korea.
Both of these actions are preludes to war. The correct term is "It puts you on a war footing." It's the equivalent of moving the 7th fleet a hundred miles off the shore of North Korea.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-03-02 12:07 am (UTC)Both bills were referred to committees on January 7th, 2003.
The House bill was referred to the subcommitte on Total Force and is awaiting Executive Comment from the Department of Defense.
I have no idea what that means. But it sounds like it's still alive.
The Senate bill was 'read twice' (?) and then referred to the committee on Armed Services.
I'm not sure if the intention is to delay them with study until a clearer political picture emerges (in the US and overseas) or if this is simply an excuse to kill them with red tape without having an 'anti-military' vote on anyone's record.
Icarus