Originally Posted By DlandJB It is an interesting discussion, but I don't actually think Rangel is serious nor thinks Congress would vote to reinstate the draft now. I think there was some scary political talk about the Democrats reinstating the draft if they took control, which was only poised by the Republicans, and this is a political stunt designed to show that the rest of the Democrats would not vote for conscription. It is just a chance to open up the dialog.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Rangle's from NY so I see him on TV all the time. He's sincere in his belief that national service of some type is a good thing for the country overall, but he knows very well that getting the draft reinstated doesn't have a chance (last time it was voted down something like 400-2). His real purpose in bringing it up is essentially to say "hey, if you want adventures like Iraq (think Iran and North Korea here), you're going to have to have a draft because the forces will be stretched too thin otherwise. So think twice about Iran and Korea." That's what this is really about, I think.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So he failed, since he only got a 50% score on that one.> I disagree.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Also, the number of troops we have in Iraq are only about 10% of our total military, hardly the bulk of it. And, we're years from moving against Iran or North Korea in the manner you suggest. By the time we do, our profile in Iraq will be greatly reduced.>> It appears the Pentagon would disagree with you. They don't think we have enough troops to even launch a counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq, much less start adventures somewhere else. <<"Go Big," the first option, originally contemplated a large increase in U.S. troops in Iraq to try to break the cycle of sectarian and insurgent violence. A classic counterinsurgency campaign, though, would require several hundred thousand additional U.S. and Iraqi soldiers as well as heavily armed Iraqi police. That option has been all but rejected by the study group, which concluded that there are not enough troops in the U.S. military and not enough effective Iraqi forces, said sources who have been informally briefed on the review.>> Source: <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15773985/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15 773985/</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It appears the Pentagon would disagree with you.<< They're all liberals.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Just look at Congressman Sestak -- formerly VADM Sestak, and newly elected representative from Pennsylvania. After retiring from the military last Spring, he campaigned on a plan for complete withdrawal from Iraq within a year. Just shows you what some of the most senior military officials think about the war in Iraq.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It appears the Pentagon would disagree with you.> No, they don't. There's nothing in that paragraph that contradicts my point.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Just shows you what some of the most senior military officials think about the war in Iraq.> Of course, others think differently. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/washington/15military.html?_r=1&ei=5094&en=bdf906ba9c650759&hp=&ex=1163566800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11 /15/washington/15military.html?_r=1&ei=5094&en=bdf906ba9c650759&hp=&ex=1163566800&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin</a>
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Also, the number of troops we have in Iraq are only about 10% of our total military, hardly the bulk of it.<< That's a pretty misleading statistic, don't you think? Most of our military is support for the combat units. What percentage of our combat units are in Iraq, were just relieved from Iraq, or who are prepping to go to Iraq? Those units are not available for other operations.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Who cares if the statistics are misleading as long as you are not personally one of the troops being redeployed or having your Iraq deployment extended -- yet again. Maybe you are lucky to be one of the "augmentees" from Navy or Air Force, filling billets that the Army doesn't have enough people to fill themselves. But who really cares about the real statistics -- it's an all volunteer military. Folks signed up to be treated this way -- right?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That's a pretty misleading statistic, don't you think?> No more so than what mrichmondj said. <What percentage of our combat units are in Iraq, were just relieved from Iraq, or who are prepping to go to Iraq?> I think about 30%. <Those units are not available for other operations.> Not currently. But they probably will be by the time we would need them against Iran or North Korea. Let's hope it never comes to that.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Well, I'm pretty sure I've read that about 10% of our total forces are in Iraq. If you figure there's about the same number preparing to go, and about the same number that have recently got back, that's about 30%.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer If I had posted what you posted in #50, would you accept those numbers as factual or would you ask for more evidence? Does that 10% all of the reserves and the Guard as well as all of the support functions that are not directly combat-related and those combat units that would not be called to duty in Iraq (such as the sailors in the submarine fleets, ships tasked with anti-submarine warfare, USAF crews in ballistic missle installations, etc)?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If I had posted what you posted in #50, would you accept those numbers as factual or would you ask for more evidence?<< <--- raises hand high from back of the room... Ooo! Ooo! Pick me! I know the answer! I know!!
Originally Posted By mrichmondj There are already Sailors from the submarine and surface ship fleets on the ground in Iraq. The Navy has over 15,000 Sailors that are serving as "augmentees" to the Army to cover shortfalls. It doesn't matter what your "day job" is anymore, you are going to get an M-16 and go to Iraq at some point.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>The Navy has over 15,000 Sailors that are serving as "augmentees" to the Army to cover shortfalls.<< They aren't serving in front-line combat roles. They are helping in the prisons, the supply chain, engineering and hospitals. There aren't many Navy units that are trained for ground fighting other than the SEALS. A sub sailor is a huge investment of time and money for the Navy - they wouldn't be putting them in the desert on the front line.
Originally Posted By jonvn I think a draft would be a good thing, for one reason. It would hopefully turn young people in this country away from being stultifyingly stupid and self-absorbed into a group of individuals who are interested in what happens to their country and to them. Maybe if there was a draft, young adults would be a little less idiotic, and care about something other than the latest piercing they got. Maybe they would even care who got elected. Maybe it would stop the horrible decline into base stupidity we are seeing. Maybe it would be a good thing.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If I had posted what you posted in #50, would you accept those numbers as factual or would you ask for more evidence?> That would depend on whether I felt them to be reasonable or not. If the number seemed ridiculously high or low, then I would question its source. <Does that 10% all of the reserves and the Guard as well as all of the support functions that are not directly combat-related and those combat units that would not be called to duty in Iraq (such as the sailors in the submarine fleets, ships tasked with anti-submarine warfare, USAF crews in ballistic missle installations, etc)?>
