home

Army Stretched Past Capacity

By Jeralyn, Section Military Draft
Posted on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 11:10:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Our Army is stretched past capacity. I'd like to think that this is just a numbers-crunching problem for Iraq.

But the way Bush is going, Iran and North Korea are also on the radar. What if troops are needed in those locations as well?

How will they do it without a draft? For those 21 - 25 year-olds who read TalkLet, I'm curious, would you go?

When it comes to the TL kid, I would say, "'over my dead body you'll take him." The greatest horror show I can remember was back in 1970 when there was a draft lottery to decide who would have to go into the service and presumably to Vietnam. The night of the lottery, I watched tv in Ann Arbor, MI with my male friends, who like me, had just taken our LSAT's and were planning on going to law school. I'll never forget the looks on the faces of those who were dealt early numbers. They just walked out of the room, when their numbers were called. And they didn't come back.

Now, as a parent of a kid in law school, who also is opposed to Bush and to war, I can't even imagine him in that situation. If it happens, I bet I won't be the only parent who says, "Hell, No, We Wont' Go." We'll play Arlo Guthrie's song, Alices Restaurant and find another place to live.

Bush and his neo-cons are determined to destroy our way of life by claiming we need to destroy others' ways of life to set them free. I couldnt' disagree more. We need a different President, one with negotiating skills that Bush and Condoleeza Rice lack. I believe electing Democrats is the best way to get there.

And I hope you all make it happen.

< Isikoff Confirms Abramoff Shopped Photos | Bush: The Non-Lawyer >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Army Stretched Past Capacity | 51 comments (51 topical)
    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 01:34:15 AM EST
    From Alternet: Is A Civil War in Iraq Inevitable?
    And you can put this in your signs-of-things-to-come file: Muqtada Sadr, the cherubic (and Rubenesque) militant young cleric, said on Sunday that the Mahdi Army, which is now a big part of the Iraqi government to be, says that his forces will fight alongside Iran's if Iran is attacked by the United States over its nuclear program.
    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#2)
    by ras on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 02:11:08 AM EST
    "Are there gonna be elections this year?" "Why yes! How could you tell?" "Oh, nothing much. Just that the Left is running another draft scare."

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 02:14:57 AM EST
    Thanks for asking. As the father of a Marine lawyer currently stationed with a combat battalion in Fallujah, as a Vietnam veteran and as an early, vocal opponent of Mr. Bush's war, which I consider to be not only illegal but a profoundly stupid conventional-type response to a guerrilla war, I am 100% in favor of restoring the draft. I think we should draft young men and young women, and there should be no deferments, such as Mr. Cheney, pudgy "tough guy" Karl Rove and the whole Bush fan club hid behind during the war in Vietnam (clarification--it's not their avoidance of the war in Vietnam that is troublesome...it is their hypocrisy: they claimed to support the war in Vietnam, but they weren't willing to fight in it, and that's the rub). Let's stuff those College Republicans into some nice uniforms. It'll be good for them. Surprised? Please, don't be. We need to have a genuine, meaningful debate about the meat grinder we are funding in Iraq, and restoring the draft, putting all those nice, white children from Martha's Vineyard and Chevy Chase and Denver and SanFrancisco--and their parents--into the equation looks like the only way to really make that happen. For more than three years we've been recycling a small group of soldiers and Marines through Iraq. Some are being killed, many are being maimed, more still are being exposed to traumatic events that will have long lasting psychological consequences (War "sears the soul" said John Murtha, he meant it, and then Jean Schmidt and her gang of loonies attacked him...)but most Americans don't have any real contact with the process. While this tragedy continues on a daily basis, the President and his little chickenhawk friends keep pounding their skinny little chests, paraphrasing lines from old John Wayne movies and lying and lying and lying to the people of America. And the vast majority of Americans have responded by mostly ignoring the entire fiasco. Americans don't even put those idiotic little "Support the Troops" magnets on their cars anymore. They sleepwalk through their daily routines, shopping and eating and dieting and watching football on tv and yelling at each other on talk radio and talk tv and in the comments sections of blogs, etc., but they really aren't really engaged. And while we live our lives, not much actually changes, and the war goes on, the killing continues and the body count keeps climbing. Restore the draft, damn it, and the war will be over in a month. Again, thank you for asking. Terry Kindlon

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#4)
    by Johnny on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 02:40:28 AM EST
    The difference this time Ras, is it is the pentagon who commissioned the study. Of course, we all know what a bastion of liberalism the pentagon is...

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 05:26:18 AM EST
    This is very interesting. My 16 year old daughter came home from school yesterday and said they discussed whether girls should be drafted as well as boys if a draft should be put in place. How would everyone feel about their daughters being made to go into the military too? I'm with TL, I think I'd have to find another place to live.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 05:46:06 AM EST
    I guess the political attacks of the last few weeks aren't working out - that hardy perennial, "the draft", is back on TL! There's not going to be a draft. Heck, the military isn't particularly stretched. It's no longer 1944, and we don't need massive numbers of troops. In fact, all a large body of troops is, is a juicy target for a nuclear armed opponent.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 05:58:27 AM EST
    Terry - Although our views on the war are different, I agree with your comments. Universal Military Service for all for two years starting three months after graduation from high school or age 18, which ever comes first. The only exceptions would be severe physical or mental disorder.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#8)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 06:22:59 AM EST
    Obviously, JR is smarter than the pentegon which paid for this study, as well as all the Generals who have weighed in on the lack of manpower. There will not be a draft for political reasons, but the US will end up having to withdraw from Iraq and have no men for an expansion of activities.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#9)
    by Punchy on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 07:00:11 AM EST
    the military isn't particularly stretched Yeah, the Pentagon...they don't know what they're talking about. What do they know about our military, anyway? I'm sure the report they drafted declaring our military was stretched was a work of just a bunch of liberals and enemy enablers. SO many of those types running around the Pentagon nowadays, right?

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#10)
    by mpower1952 on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 07:02:51 AM EST
    What I don't understand is why the military stands by Bush. They didn't seem to have any trouble calling President Clinton a draft dodger although he got a deferrment just like Cheney, Newt and countless other Repugs. The military stood by Hitler too and now we all wish they hadn't. Mr. Kindlon- You may think the war would be over in a month if a draft was reinstated but it won't happen unless they draft the Bush twins. Rich people will always have ways of protecting their kids from combat. Oh, and some of us don't need to actually be in a war to understand the horror. It only takes a bit of unbiased knowledge and caring, something most repugs seem to lack.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:06:32 AM EST
    Now, as a parent of a kid in law school, who also is opposed to Bush and to war, I can't even imagine him in that situation. If it happens, I bet I won't be the only parent who says, "Hell, No, We Wont' Go."
    So let me get this straight......What your saying is that Bush is coward who is not willing to send his children to war to defend our way of life, and therefore you also have the right to be a coward who is not willing to defend our way of life. Your reasoning is so flawed, and so flawed in so many directions, that its not even worth discusssing. Also just in case any of you elitists didn't quite catch the inference, lets get it straight. No, just because your child is studying to be a lawyer, does not excuse him/her from his/her responsibility to protect his own existence. Even though you clearly don't believe it, the plumbers, and bus drivers kids don't owe you or your kid anything, except the willingness to stand shoulder to shoulder with him/her in the trenches. Perhaps, you should consider your position on this a little bit. Your never going to gain credibility with your "Bush is an elitist, who won't send the twins to war" line, while screeching out the other side of your mouth that your child's going to be a "lawyer" and somebody else's kids need to protect him/her while he is in college. Perhaps you should also consider why President Bush is so willing to publically state that he "is not a lawyer." Perhaps its because of the general publics perception that lawyers really are the souless scumbags that I have described above.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#12)
    by Patrick on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:12:38 AM EST
    According to USAtoday a week or so ago, Army reenlistments were at a 5 year high. Detractors will say this is due to new reenlistment bonuses, but there have been reenlistment bonuses since I left more than 15 years ago.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:16:07 AM EST
    My draft number during the 'Nam days was 11, but I was in college at the time and to top things off, flunked my physical. Cried for a week, yeah right. Iran, Syria, N. Korea. They want to invade, but they can't because they don't have the forces. Murta speaking out was, I think, him speaking for a faction of the Pentagon generals who know the US is way over extended. If they bring back the draft, schools and colleges will erupt. There's already a fast-growing movement on campuses to get the recruiters out.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:30:45 AM EST
    Variable: ...lawyers really are the souless scumbags that I have described above. Chill. Ok, what was you're point again? Variable: ...What your saying is that Bush is coward who is not willing to send his children to war to defend our way of life, and therefore you also have the right to be a coward who is not willing to defend our way of life. You are intentionally misrepresenting TL. That whole tit-for-tat thing, for example, is from your imagination. I think TL was suggesting that GWB, and you, have skipped a step. TL: We need a different President, one with negotiating skills... If one were to believe that a war was not necessary, or did not have as its purpose to "defend our way of life," then one wouldn't want to die in that war. Would one?

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:33:11 AM EST
    Variable: That is not what is being said at all. What is being said is that if there were a draft to provide more targets in Bush's war of choice, who would go. Those that support war without sacrificing to actually fight in the war are known as chickenhawks. Chickenhawks tend to support war because they know that they, as the priveledged class will never actually have to fight the war, nor sacrifice their children's lives to achieve their noble victory. Terry Kindlon above had a very good post that if ALL of our 18 year olds were drafted we might not be so eager to go halfway across the world to invade a country which is no threat to us. The problem with chickenhawks is their blatant hypocrisy. "Tough Guy" Dick Cheney got 5 deferrments so he wouldn't have to face death or dismemberment, yet he is all too eager to send others to face the same. This has nothing to do with lawyers or kids in law school. Neither Viet Nam nor Iraq had anything to do with protecting our freedoms or our way of life. Both had to do with politicians playing games with others' lives. This administration has taken chickenhawkism to an entirely new level. Not only do they refuse to sacrifice their bodies, they refuse to sacrifice theri tax cuts to pay for the war. Bush has already started talking about making tax cuts for the rich permanent. Not only does he wants someone elses' kids to die in his war, he wants future generations to pay for it. He wants free war for himself, because someone else can pick up the tab. Mpower1952: The military can't not support the President. It's chain of command. The Pres is Commander in chief. The military has to support and follow the President's orders. Otherwise, we would be ruled by a military junta. That is why we have a civilian commander. That is drilled into every officer at every service academy from the time they enter on. It is up to the citizenry to question the Pres., not the militery. As Ben Franklin said; "It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority."

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#16)
    by Punchy on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:56:40 AM EST
    Variable: The point JM is making, that you seem either willing to ignore or are too partisian to recognize, is that she doesn't support the war. Never did. She doesn't want her kid to go. But that's ok, because there exists a PLETHORA of people like yourself so willing to pimp this war, promote our war-like ways, but aren't enlisted. She's saying "Put up or shut up"--fight this war you're so brash about promoting with your body instead of your mouth. Those that want this war can fight it; those that don't, shouldn't have to. Don't like those rules? Then don't start such wildly unpopular, unecessary wars. So many chickenhawks, so ready to scream about how liberals are weak because we don't want our military engaged continuously for years on end, in an action that wasn't even necessary. Yet they won't step in, step up, grab a rifle, and sit in a desert for 12 months strainght. Nope, your damn computer, a blog, and some wicked nasty comments is how you fight. 5,000 miles from actual danger. You "conservatives" disgust me with your hypocrisy and your arrogance.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#17)
    by mpower1952 on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 09:09:27 AM EST
    Dick- I understand what you're saying about chain of command. But when German soldiers put people in gas chambers, was that chain of command too? I thought if soldiers were given commands that were irrational or depraved, they had a duty to protest or ignore them. What about Mei lai? A soldier was prosecuted for obeying orders. The soldiers in Abu Graib were prosecuted for obeying orders. When can a soldier disobey orders or protest the sanity of their leader?

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 09:32:06 AM EST
    Ah, Variable - Just which country are we fighting for? The George Bush America with free speech zones, loyalty oaths (can anyone but a Republican even get in to see the president?), perpetual war for peace, torturing, abandoning treaties, and generally just naming programs like "Clear Skies" that describe the opposite of what is actually intended, etc etc etc. We intend to take our grandson out of this country before he will fight in Iraq. First let the Bush twins go and the rest of the chickenhawks. Aloha to all - lets hope we come to our collective senses if it isn't already too late.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#19)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 09:43:27 AM EST
    I've already had my draft counselor training. If the draft is revived, I'll be working with my local chapter of the American Friends Service Committee to make sure that young men and women of conscience in my community know what their choices are. The willingness of posters here to give up other peoples' freedoms notwithstanding, the law in this country provides exemption from military conscription for those who hold a moral opposition to participation in war. However, one must be prepared to prove that opposition to exercise the exemption. That's where I come in.

    Re: Army Stretched Past Capacity (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 10:08:33 AM EST
    The main problem with never having a draft again is that our American culture is starting to sli