US Re-instating the Draft??

[icarus]

Government reinstating the *Draft?* Does somebody know if this is true or not?

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.

Comments

[clymer.livejournal.com]

There has been some talk about it on Capitol Hill, yes. Many of my Professors are actively involved with policy issues in Washington DC and travel there frequently. The latest buzz is that's it's being "seriously considered," but it's not a foregone conclusion just yet. It really depends on how things shape up overseas and how the next election turns out. Another thing to consider is that within the past 6 months or so, the tenor of the discussion has changed somewhat, and policy makers are considering adding women to the draft as well.

The Profs who got the info I referred to above won't say who told them - it was all "water cooler talk" and not any official statement. But you can take a look at some of the evidence that the draft is under consideration at an admittedly partisan site http://www.bushdraft.com/ Some of the stuff on the site is a bit goofy (ie: pictures of the President with cartoon caption balloons, etc), but it is a decent collection of the information as it stands right now on consideration of the draft.

If the draft is reinstated, it will be much harder to dodge it than it was last time. Running away to Canada is no longer an option (at least, not after you've been drafted), thanks to post September 11 border patrol agreements. College isn't a way out, either, anymore. My advice is that if you're drafting age and don't want to fight, you should register now as someone who is opposed to war and unwilling to serve as a combatant - whether you're male or female.

I do know that the draft board positions are suspicious, but draft board positions are for a certain number of years and apparently many of them recently expired and the positions need to be filled again. That doesn't explain why people are trying to keep it quiet, but it's a consideration.

Like I said, it's not a foregone conclusion just yet and nothing has been firmly decided, but all evidence I have been able to find suggests that it is being "seriously considered" as a possible option.

[wenelda.livejournal.com]

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 want to cry now... War with North Korea? Or with Iraq still? Or someone else? I don't understand why he's doing this. I really don't.

[wenelda.livejournal.com]

Are women drafted too, or not?

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

If the draft is reinstated, it will be much harder to dodge it than it was last time. Running away to Canada is no longer an option (at least, not after you've been drafted), thanks to post September 11 border patrol agreements. College isn't a way out, either, anymore. My advice is that if you're drafting age and don't want to fight, you should register now as someone who is opposed to war and unwilling to serve as a combatant - whether you're male or female.

Since they have that whole "don't ask, don't tell" thing, is telling them that you're gay a likely way out? (I'm neither male nor of the drafting age, just curious.)

[clymer.livejournal.com]

Not right now, no. As I am given to understand, it is being talked about seriously as a possible option (read: they are honestly considering it, and it's not a pie-in-the-sky proposal), but there's nothing definite either way right now. All I can say with reasonable confidence is that they've been talking about it, and haven't dismissed the possibility of adding women to the draft.

My guess is that drafting women wouldn't go over well with the Bush administration's conservative voter base, so I'm thinking that this possible option is being pursued less strongly than reinstituting a male draft - but that's just my opinion.

[wenelda.livejournal.com]

Phew...
My stress levels are having just so much fun today. *Sigh*

My guess is that drafting women wouldn't go over well with the Bush administration's conservative voter base

Well, they are good for something, then. *Cough*

[clymer.livejournal.com]

I have no direct knowledge either way, but I've read an article which seems to suggest that telling the military you're gay is a likely way out - at least if you're already in the military. I'd assume this would generalize to those not yet in the military, as well, but that's speculation on my part.

The article I'm referring to (http://fletcher.tufts.edu/news/2001/february/fahey1.html) quotes a member of the Navy who decided to file for CO status as saying, "Sadly, it is vastly easier to be discharged for stating you are gay than it is for stating your conscience prevents you from participating in a war."

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I've got a little more information than that.

There are three documents that pertain to this. Two bills, US Senate Bill S 89 and US House of Representatives Bill HR 163. They were introduced in January 2003. They require two years military services for all men and women between the ages of 18-26.

I've not been able to determine if these were passed into law by the 108th Congress last year (it would have happened by the end of 2003). Can you find out if one or both of these were passed?

The text of the House bill HR 163 (http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr163.html)
The text of the Senate bill S 89 (http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s89.html)


There's also a tune-up of the selective service as shown in their annual performance plan for Fiscal Year 2004 (http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html), in which they've been tasked to demonstrate they have a working system to deliver personnel by March 31, 2005. Whether this is routine or not, I don't know.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Hm, interesting. Thanks!

[lyricalnights.livejournal.com]

Three words: Ego. Driven. Asshat.

How many days until November? (Assuming he doesn't destroy the planet by then.)

[electricandroid.livejournal.com]

Sweetie I found this aritcle here:
http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/105146_comment.php#111842

I don't know if it helps any - I'm not very au fait with what is happening - but as an american citizen I'm currently scared shitless.....

*hugs and cuddles*

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Your links gave me more up to date information on the subject from the House and the Senate.

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

[wikdsushi.livejournal.com]

So what WG thinks is that Bush, in a move of extreme stupidity, is sinking more money we don't have into building up a fighting force we don't need so he can piss off the rest of Asia by launching a war (that could get us all killed) on a nuclear-capable country. Not a large nuclear-capable country, but nuclear-capable nonetheless. Oh, yeah, and is run by a loon who would be even happier to press the button than Bush would be to taunt him into it.

Ya know, I think I'm just going to let my immune system kill me now. It'll be less painful in the end.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Actually, he thinks that the Pentagon, panicked that it might have its budget cut, latches onto every conceivable opportunity for war and --

-- yeah. What you said.

Icarus

[wenelda.livejournal.com]

It'll be gone by June at this rate. Gaahh.

[anjenue.livejournal.com]

This is another example of Bush trying to prove that he's better than everyone else by beating everyone else down and then kicking them for good measure, all in the name of 'war on terrorism'. How is what the US is doing NOT terrorism? We're sending troops to other countries, bombing the hell out of them, and then celebrating the fact that we've decimated their morale.

If Bush gets reelected, I'm moving back to Canada.

Or to England. That's farther away.

[lerah99.livejournal.com]

"How is what the US is doing NOT terrorism?"

I believe Bush's answer to that is "Because we're the USA!" (I can practically hear the Yee-Haw after it.) My favorite part of this war with Iraq was the "preemptive strike" due to the fact they "have WMD". Now, the USA has WMDs and a heck of a lot of them. On top of that, we have used our nuclear warheads to end a war in the past.

So, following our fearless leader George W. asshat Bush's thinking, the entire world could launch a "preemptive strike" on us due to the fact that we have "WMD" and are willing to use them. Of course, if anyone did that, we would call it terrorism.

See, the difference lies in if you are the USA or if you aren't the USA.

If you are the USA, this sort of thing is just about taking down a "bad man" and "freeing" his people. and oil

If you are not the USA, you are a terrorist.


Damn, I need to find and marry a Canadian for citizenship.

[anjenue.livejournal.com]

Hey, I'm Canadian. Gay marriage is legal there. Whaddya say?

Actually...

[anevilweasel.livejournal.com]

from most of the research i've done you might "officially" be put on the "we are going to get rid of you" list but most "discharges" (which they can legally do with some types of discharges) are stopped until after the draft has been removed. At least they were slowed to a near crawl.

At least this is what happened during the last draft. Honestly, don't count on the gay thing keeping you from it if you're not in the service either.

Canon fodder is Canon Fodder gay or straight.

Though I'm not up to date on entrance qualifications for the service any longer so don't take my word for much of anything when it comes to that.

I'm waiting

[anevilweasel.livejournal.com]

for Bush to declare war on the Girl Scouts for Terrorizing all the Low Carbers and Obese people of the World like me with their scandelously good cookies.

At least he might do some good.

[lerah99.livejournal.com]

Wow, Canadian and you're interested in Chemisty! Teach me the words to Oh Canada and we'll be all set. :o)

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I hear you practically have to shave your head and join a monastery to have your CO request be approved.

This legislation is so extreme, even if you're CO-approved, you can't get out of the military -- you're just moved to non-combat positions.

Jesus. Let's hope it's in committee to die a slow death of asphixiation by red tape.

Icarus

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Thanks, acutally, you're the one I got it from in the first place. I'm writing about it for the college newspaper.

Icarus

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Always happy to be bringing people together.

Icarus

[ceilidh]

*is glad she is juuuuust over that age 26 limit*

It does make me really pissed off for my daughter, though. She's only three right now, but if this goes through it'll be there forever, likely. GRRR.

[aigooism.livejournal.com]

....A bill that states all men and women between the age of 18-26 must serve the fucking military? Oh lordy. If that's passed... I am SO changing my citizenship. I'll work for the government, but I sure ain't gonna go into no military.

But anyways... what that would suck. And war with NK... and I'm in Seoul. Oi. It could turn ugly if a war ever broke out.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I've checked out the fiscal plan for selective service, comparing the 2001 budget to the 2004. In 2001 the budget was $24.48 million. In 2004 that budget was $28.29 million. It's a modest increase and tells me that's just the normal amount it costs to keep the selective service running. So I suspect that the draft bill is something the president wants, but if they're smart they'll kill it in committee.

Icarus

[electricandroid.livejournal.com]

excellent! I'm really glad that you're going to do something like that - you're one of the few people I trust not to be reactionary and silly on either side of the issue - either way, being over the top could results in problems. *hugs* thanks darling

:)

[al-riddle.livejournal.com]

*BLINKS* I'm putting my Paranoia Hat on, just in case.

[clymer.livejournal.com]

Not that I'm trying to discourage you, but I figure peeople should be well informed when contemplating these kinds of decisions:

"You must be careful, because your Canadian citizenship does not relieve you of legal obligations in another country of which you are a citizen (such as compulsory military service)" [unless you renounce your primary citizenship, that is] -- Immigration Information (http://www.livejournal.com/community/canadabound/40966.html) from canadabound

Another piece you may be interested in reading:Emmigration: Is it right for you? (http://www.livejournal.com/community/canadabound/47256.html)

[clymer.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily - being a master of divinity student is one of six ways to be exempt from service. There are, as you alluded to, several levels of exemption, however. Here's a good article (http://www.angelfire.com/la3/kirstenanderberg/pagedraft.html) that explains the ins and outs of drafting (You can skip the first two paragraphs, though, as it's mostly stuff that's already been discussed here).

[clymer.livejournal.com]

Hrm. I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but I thought you might like some more info on becoming a Canadian citizen. People aren't usually taken seriously when they say they want to move to Canada (or Australia, or New Zealand, etc), but I think these kinds of decisions are serious ones, and worth thinking about - and you can hardly think about it properly if you're not informed.

See my response (http://www.livejournal.com/users/icarusancalion/174537.html?thread=1866697#t1866697) to tara_chan012 for some informative links, if you're interested.

An excerpt from the link I provided on Immigration information: "It is impossible to obtain Canadian citizenship through marriage 'instantly' or in any accelerated manner. Unless you are born in Canada or have Canadian parents and meet the appropriate standards (which depend on when you are born), you cannot apply for citizenship in Canada until you have lived there for 1035 days (3 years). There are absolutely no exceptions."

The above statement is completely in line with all legal documentation I've read on the subject. I can probably dig up primary sources if anyone wants them.

[wanderingscribe.livejournal.com]

Oh shit...what about Mexico? If I can't go North, I might as well go south. Besides, I've got relatives in Central America...lucky me. I can go for a visit and not come back.

[wanderingscribe.livejournal.com]

Oh no no no. Please someone say they aren't. [worries]

I'm a 22 year old female, damnit. I don't wanna go, even if these bills were passed. I don't wanna fight for something I don't believe in at all or have to kill someone for my stupid asshat-run country.

That's it. Like I said earlier, if this shit actually goes down, I'm going to Mexico, then Honduras. And staying there. (At least I know enough Spanish...that won't be a problem.)

[worries more]

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Wow, what a compliment, thank you. The teacher for the journalism class called me "a pro."

I just laid out the facts in the article, took a very dry tone and put as little spin on it as possible. If the facts themselves weren't so scary this would be the most boring piece I've ever written.

I also quoted huge sections from the bills themselves -- for credibility -- because it was hard to believe otherwise. When I just strung sentences and quotes together it sounded like I could have been taking things out of context, and when I didn't quote extensively it seemed like I might have made it up. This particular paper is very liberal and anti-Bush, and college newspapers don't have a lot credibility to start.

Icarus

[electricandroid.livejournal.com]

you deserve the compliment - you are the most too the point person I talk to. It is very scary isn't it - but if people find out about it - hopefully something can be done while there is still a chance. Its all well and good to have ppl say "Let's go to war" but when it will really affect their own children, we might see something better. As has been said before, who made america the police of the world...

*hugs* Proud of you for doing this darling :)