Bringing back the draft?

“As much as I hate to say it, I can think of far worse things for Americas youth then a draft.”

“Such as?”

“Whats worse then a draft? A disconnect between what we have and why we have it. A culture that revolves around "me", not seeing yourself and responsiblities in a larger context. The idea that one can reap the benefits of citizenship while others do the work ( sorry a day job doesnt cut it). An overall attitude of selfishness and no sense of duty. To name a few.”

“I was drafted. I learned how to kill!”

“Whats worse then a draft? A disconnect between what we have and why we have it. A culture that revolves around "me", not seeing yourself and responsiblities in a larger context. The idea that one can reap the benefits of citizenship while others do the work ( sorry a day job doesnt cut it). An overall attitude of selfishness and no sense of duty. To name a few."
birch
05:53:51 AM
04/03/04

Sorry, but there was a draft in the sixties, and I can point to cultural examples of all those things in that generation. A draft didn't cure them, so what you got was that and the draft.”

“i have to say that given the right circumstances if a draft was placed in effect IMO if you avoid it then you should not be welcomed back...i have probably three or four Vietnam veterans in my family and i grew up around scores of WW2 vets and i think everyone of them would kick your ass if they knew you were going to avoid a duty asked of you by your country...”

“The draft is a great idea when we have leaders that think a ground war with China is a good idea.All of you draft friendly types should enlist --why wait for the law to change.After GW's little party I can't believe you're still out there.”

“contractors are mercenaries?
shi'ites private security are called thugs?
the draft is for Mr. Shrub's
Pinkie and the Brain's
I want to rule the world.....
the draft for Mr. Kerry is for national security..... when is that port in california gonna blow up? my guess is ....soon”

“Phaedrus, as I said months ago on this thread I am not talking about military service only. A military only draft would be horrible, but mandatory national service could work...

Uncliff, please read my post from last november on this thread it may clarify what my view is. And I agree that those who favor the draft (and those who dont) should enlist. I did and it was two of the most challenging and rewarding years of my life. I wish more kids would see the benefits of military service.”

“Posted on Fri, May. 09, 2003


U.S. Army Recruiter Crosses Mexico Border

MARK STEVENSON

Associated Press

http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/5823038.htm

MEXICO CITY - When a U.S. Army recruiter sought out two potential recruits at a Tijuana high school last week, he fueled a maelstrom of anger and gave credence to erroneous reports that the United States recruits Mexicans as soldiers.

Last week's incident appears to be a misstep by an overzealous recruiter tracking down two youths who apparently expressed interest in the Army at a San Diego recruiting office.

But it took on greater importance with the U.S. at war in Iraq, as a rumor persisted that would-be immigrants could get U.S. citizenship by serving in the Army.

At least five Mexican-born soldiers - all of whom had immigrated to the United States years earlier - were killed in Iraq. And Mexican media sometimes depicted even second-generation Mexican-Americans who died in Iraq as another "Mexican" casualty in a war opposed by a majority of people in this country.

"An Army recruiter from San Diego did indeed come into Tijuana ... he was over here looking for two specific people," said Liza Davis, spokeswoman for the U.S. consulate in Tijuana.

She described the two as "potential recruits who had approached the Army," probably young men who held U.S. citizenship or legal residency. Many Mexicans with U.S. citizenship live in Tijuana.

"The U.S. Army does not recruit here," Davis said. "We don't endorse them coming here."

The U.S. Army's recruitment command center issued a memo to its field offices, reminding recruiters they are not allowed to cross the border.

"It was unfortunate in that it could help foster a myth, which is not true, that the U.S. armed forces recruit Mexicans," Army spokesman Douglas Smith said. "This recruiter did something he should not do."

The rumors of Mexicans being used as cannon fodder was so bad a month before the war that the U.S. embassy sent out a press release clarifying that Hispanics - people of Mexican and other Latin American origin - were not over-represented in the armed forces. In fact, they make up 8.7 percent of the U.S. military and about 13 percent of the general population.

The U.S. embassy clarified that "undocumented or illegal immigrants cannot serve in the U.S. armed forces."

Part of the confusion stems from an order by President Bush last July allowing 31,000 non-citizens in the military to apply for nationalization at the start of active duty.

Mexico City media reported a U.S. sergeant visited Tijuana's Technological High School 261 on April 30.

The Mexico City newspaper, Milenio, ran the headline, "The U.S. Army is recruiting in Tijuana." The Tijuana daily, El Mexicano, described the Army sergeant's visit as "an intense campaign to recruit young high school students."

The Baja California state government was incensed.

"They did not even have the minimal courtesy to ask for permission," state spokesman Gustavo Magallanes said of the visit. "We ask them to act with prudence, and respect for the Mexican government."

Baja California Gov. Eugenio Elorduy demanded that Mexican immigration authorities "act with greatest firmness and the heaviest hand," and state officials implied U.S. recruiters would be detained the next time.

Mexican media accounts said the recruiter handed out promotional Army fliers to students. U.S. officials denied those charges.

Mexico has long been sensitive by what it perceives as the United States encroaching upon its sovereignty. Such sensibilities are particularly heightened along the U.S.-Mexico border.
”

“In particular -----

"The U.S. embassy clarified that "undocumented or illegal immigrants cannot serve in the U.S. armed forces."

Part of the confusion stems from an order by President Bush last July allowing 31,000 non-citizens in the military to apply for nationalization at the start of active duty."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Did the reporter mean to write 'naturalization' instead of 'nationalization'?

From this article, it appears that one can join the armed forces as long as s/he is a legal resident --- but citizenship is not required.
”

“The press had lots of fun with the recent robot debacle in the Mojave Desert. Competing for $1 million in prize money, 15 vehicles headed off on a 142-mile course through some of the most forbidding terrain in the country. None managed to navigate even eight miles. The robots hit fences, caught fire, rolled over, or sat and did nothing.

However, the purpose of the event was not NASCAR for nerds, but a coldly calculated plan to construct a generation of killer machines.

Sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Mar. 13 “race” was part of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) plan to make one third of the military’s combat vehicles driverless by 2015. The push to replace soldiers with machines is impelled by an over-extended military searching for ways to limit U.S. casualties, a powerful circle of arms manufactures, and an empire-minded group of politicians addicted to campaign contributions by defense corporations.

This “rise of the machines” is at the heart of the Bush administration’s recent military budget. Sandwiched into outlays for aircraft, artillery, and conventional weapons, are monies for unmanned combat aircraft, robot tanks, submarines, and a supersonic bomber capable of delivering six tons of bombs and missiles to anyplace on the globe in two hours.

<snip>
According to U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), chair of the House Subcommittee on Procurements, one-third of U.S. tactical-strike aircraft will be unmanned within the next 10 years.

<snip>
The lure of being able to fight a war without getting your own people killed is a seductive one. “It is possible that in our lifetime we will be able to run a conflict without ever leaving the United States ,” Lt. Col. David Branham told the New York Times last year.

A high-tech machine war would allow the U.S. to quickly strike over enormous distances, an important capability in the Bush administration’s pre-emptive war strategy.

<snip>
...“If western nations can employ violence with impunity, will they not be tempted to use it more often?”

http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0404machines.html”

“This reminds me of the talk going around in programming circles when Star Wars was a hot topic....

It would suck big-time if a logical error accidentally fried Omaha.



Resistance Is Futile.”

“Actually, I think the country is too big, what if we lost most of the mid-west?”

“Very sad that those brave young people had to die to keep us safe from WMD's that didn't exist.”

“From the white house press briefing:

Q Scott, Senator Hagel also talked about the idea -- the need for more troops, perhaps speaking to the notion of reinstating the draft. What's the President's position on reinstating the draft?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, that's not something that's been under consideration.

Q Is it something that the President keeps in the back of his mind, though, that he may have to do at some point?

MR. McCLELLAN: As I said earlier today, it's just not something that's been under consideration.

Q Is he ruling it out categorically?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, it's not something that's under consideration. That's the way I would describe it.
”

“Let's see:

If Bush gets re-elected.

If there was a draft in his second term.

If those two things happen, I would be hard pressed to not think it would sink the Republican party for generations.”

“WoW! It would appear that the person who took that pic, got fired over it......:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/04/22/coffin.photo.ap/index.html”

“Thanks for posting that, Laq. They fired her husband, also.”

“If I'm not mistaken it is illegal to take pictures of our dead soldiers in certain areas. BTW- this was instituted by Klinton. To bad it's not illegal to use them for politicizing death on web boards.”

“So, is that an illegal picture????
Politicizing death by trying to ignore it, is indeed despicable.”

“Photographs are ilegal on all US bases. That photo is on an American plane so I would say it is. The fact they got fired is a good indicator too.

How is having respect for the dead ignoring it?”

“Trying to keep my feet out of my mouth...........

I kind of agree photos of military coffins should not be allowed. However, how far do we take it? Should photos of dead soldiers be made illegal? Every Administration since Nam has probably tried to control the press to fight negative publicity. Wasn't censorship of Gulf War I pretty intense? Can't remember any nasty shots.”

“To bad it's not illegal to use them for politicizing death on web boards."
Nigal
03:10:35 PM
04/22/04

I'll make this as simple as I can for you, Nigal.

A draft will mean more of this. If you want to call that politicizing, you can call pretty much anything politicizing. If you read back through this thread, I've done a fair job analyzing the chances of the reinstating of the draft (the thread title), and have been as fair as I could about what it means from each of the political candidates and to us as Americans, in general. You know my opinions on Bush, but you'll notice that I said I believe the draft will be necessary under either of the two party candidates, unless something changes drastically.

How is having respect for the dead ignoring it?"
Nigal
03:16:35 PM
04/22/04

This is a very different situation than posting pictures of a dead body, which you seem to be trying to say is equivalent. Pictures of flag-draped coffins do not reveal the identity of the body inside, nor do they serve as disrespect to the dead inside.

The pentagon has released numerous other photos under the freedom of information act, some of which have been published by reuters.

BTW, the law you're talking about came into being during the first Gulf war under Bush 1.

Reuters Photo:



The bodies of these soldiers are being treated with the dignity and respect they deserve, having given their lives for the ideal of the US.

Nigal, your rhetoric irritates me when you don't bother backing up incendiary remarks with any real thought.”

“The Rueters photo appears to be part of a collection of 361 photos released as part of a freedom of information act request. The sobering images are all very respectful and show the honor given these fallen servicepeople.

http://media.newsfrombabylon.com/war/coffin_photos/dover/index.htm”

“May they all rest in pease!



interesting album, to say the least.”

“These pictures are everywhere today, but now the pentagon is reversing its policy of releasing them.”

“I thought the policy came from the Executive Branch --- a continuation of policy from Gulf War I.”

“The Wahington Post has some background.”

“MILITARY STRENGTH: Rumsfeld: No need to bring back draft

April 23, 2004

BY ROBERT BURNS
ASSOCIATED PRESS




WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration sees no need to reinstate the military draft, but it is pushing for improved Pentagon management of the 1.4 million-strong force in order to meet wartime needs, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Thursday.

"I don't know anyone in the executive branch of the government who believes it would be appropriate or necessary to reinstitute the draft," Rumsfeld said during the Newspaper Association of America's annual convention.

Some in Congress have questioned whether the long-term nature of the global war on terrorism might require a return to the system of military conscription that has not been used since 1973.

On Wednesday, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., raised the possibility that compulsory military service might be necessary. The nation is engaged "in a generational war here against terrorism," Hagel said. "It's going to require resources."

Rumsfeld said the former system of conscription had "a lot of difficulties," such as loopholes that permitted many to avoid being drafted. He said the military simply does not need to abandon its all-volunteer approach.

"We have a relatively small military. We have been very successful in recruiting and retaining the people we need," he said. Although the military is strained by its commitments, it is working on ways to get more combat power out of the existing force, he said.”

“U.S. eyes proposal to draft women

Toronto Star

WASHINGTON—The chief of the U.S. Selective Service System has proposed registering women for the military draft and requiring that young Americans regularly inform the government about whether they have training in niche specialties needed in the armed services.

The proposal, which the agency's acting director Lewis Brodsky presented to senior Pentagon officials just before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, also seeks to extend the age of draft registration to 34, up from 25.

[...]
The plan, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, highlights the extent to which agency officials have planned for an expanded military draft in case the administration and Congress authorize one in the future.

"In line with today's needs, the Selective Service System's structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered toward maintaining a national inventory of American men and, for the first time, women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on identifying individuals with critical skills," the agency said in a Feb. 11, 2003, proposal presented to Pentagon officials.

The agency acknowledged that they would have "to market the concept" of a female draft to Congress, which would have to authorize such a step.”

“Upping the age of conscription to 34...

Anyone else out there think this is a good idea?”

“Sure! I turn 35 in 20 days! :)”

“Cool! I'll be 34... in my next incarnation.”

“whatever happened to the good ole days of sexism, anyway?”

“
Registered mail...special delivery
OH NO
You're gonna hafta sign fer this, buddy
OH NO
I know you're in there, ya little sum#&%!$
OH NO
Goddam little communist...


"Drafted Again"
You Are What You Is (1981)
”

“Any feminist worth her salt will demand to be included!”

“Last year, Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-S.C.) and Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) introduced bills calling for reinstatement of the military draft. A far more descriptive term for the military draft is government confiscation of labor services, but keeping with the spirit of euphemistic obfuscation, I'll stick to the term draft. Let's first ask why a draft would be needed in the first place.

Rest assured that if the military offered a compensation package of, say, $50,000 to $100,000 a year, it could get all the soldiers it wanted. Thus, lesson No. 1 is that whenever there's a draft, you know that the wage is too low to get a sufficient number of people to voluntarily supply their labor services.

Sen. Hollings said, "One way to avoid a lot more wars is to institute the draft." That's a statement that reflects gross economic ignorance. In terms of incentives, it produces the opposite effect. Why? The draft is used because the wage the military offers isn't high enough to get what's deemed as a sufficient number of people to volunteer.

Here's my no-brainer question: Under which scenario is war cheaper for the Defense Department -- the volunteer army or the draft? Obviously, it's the draft since the Defense Department doesn't have to pay the higher wages to get men to sign up voluntarily. Since the Defense Department has a smaller manpower expense, the draft disguises the true cost of war, and one would expect more, not less, military adventurism.

Waging war requires much more than soldiers. You need tanks, bombs, bullets and aircraft. Have you heard a call to draft $15 million F-15 fighter jets or $4.3 million M1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks? I haven't. The reason is that the government pays the kind of prices whereby producers voluntarily supply these products. Of course, if the Pentagon were willing to pay McDonnell Douglas only $5 million for an F-15 and General Dynamics only $1 million for a tank, it would have to draft (read: confiscate) jets and tanks.

Does one have a duty to defend his country? I say yes. In order to field one soldier, I'm guessing you need hundreds of civilian workers to supply him with boots, food, bullets, tanks, jets, medical equipment and thousands of other items needed in war in addition to soldiers. Thus, if you're engaged in producing these items, you are participating in the defense of your country.

Being employed producing the hardware for the defense of our country need not be voluntary. The government could send us draft notices ordering us to report for work at General Dynamics' Texas track-vehicle facility at $400 a month. If the government did this, would you call it a draft or slave labor? Not to worry, the Defense Department offers attractive contracts to firms like McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics, and they in turn offer attractive wages to employees, and thus, volunteerism gets the right number of workers to make the right number of jets and tanks.

The Defense Department might argue that a draft is needed because it would be too expensive to pay market wages to get the desired number of soldiers. It would be right so far as the military budget is concerned but wrong when it comes to military's true cost to the nation. The true cost of a soldier in the army is the value of what he could have produced, and society must sacrifice, were he not in the army -- what economists call “opportunity cost.” Even if the military paid the soldier nothing, the nation must forgo what the soldier could have produced were he not in the military.

National defense is an important government function; for rational decision-making, we mustn't permit concealment of its cost through measures like the draft.



©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.”

“MILITARY STRENGTH: Rumsfeld: No need to bring back draft

April 23, 2004

BY ROBERT BURNS
ASSOCIATED PRESS




WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration sees no need to reinstate the military draft, but it is pushing for improved Pentagon management of the 1.4 million-strong force in order to meet wartime needs, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Thursday.

"I don't know anyone in the executive branch of the government who believes it would be appropriate or necessary to reinstitute the draft," Rumsfeld said during the Newspaper Association of America's annual convention.

Some in Congress have questioned whether the long-term nature of the global war on terrorism might require a return to the system of military conscription that has not been used since 1973.

On Wednesday, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., raised the possibility that compulsory military service might be necessary. The nation is engaged "in a generational war here against terrorism," Hagel said. "It's going to require resources."

Rumsfeld said the former system of conscription had "a lot of difficulties," such as loopholes that permitted many to avoid being drafted. He said the military simply does not need to abandon its all-volunteer approach.

"We have a relatively small military. We have been very successful in recruiting and retaining the people we need," he said. Although the military is strained by its commitments, it is working on ways to get more combat power out of the existing force, he said."
birch
06:50:12 PM
04/23/04”

“I see the point, Phaedrus... but Fritz's statement was more a comment on public support and Charlie's argument seems to center on spreading the burden to all classes.

I wonder what the George W's of this generation would do, now that the Guard is shipping out to Persia.”

“Military says it might return some former soldiers to duty

By Hal Bernton
Seattle Times staff reporter

Hundreds of Washington residents who thought they might be done with their days in the Army may be pulled back into service in the weeks ahead.

The unusual move would affect some who were on active duty less than eight years. It would be intended to shore up the ranks of reserve and National Guard units, many of which have been mobilized to serve in Iraq.

"The driving force behind this is that reserves, stateside, are in some areas running short," said Ray Gall, a spokesman for the Army Human Resources Command in St. Louis.

The decision on whether to go ahead with the recall in Washington and other states is expected sometime after May 31. Men and women would be assigned to units short of soldiers. A recall could involve thousands nationwide.

In the meantime, reserve and Guard recruiters have been phoning former soldiers and suggesting they might want to enlist voluntarily to pick the unit of their choice.

"Right now, we have about 500 people who might be eligible, and about 70 to 75 of them have said they are interested in joining a unit," said Maj. Hillary Anne Luton, a spokeswoman for the 70th Regional Readiness Command, based at Seattle's Fort Lawton.

Former soldiers subject to a potential recall are those whose active-duty service fell short of the eight-year mark. After leaving the service, they joined what is known as the Individual Ready Reserve. In this position, they're able to pursue civilian careers full time. But until they reach that eight-year mark, the Army can assign them to a reserve unit.

The Army seldom uses that power of recall, but it is scrambling to come up with additional soldiers to maintain its troop strength in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"It is very, very rare that they are being dipped into, and it's usually just for specialties," said Master Sgt. Jeff Clayton of the Washington Army National Guard.

Army reserve officials say many units in the United States have holes because some soldiers have been siphoned off to fill out units headed for Iraq. Army officials would try to place soldiers in reserve units within 50 miles of their homes, but there would be no guarantees. Those units, if mobilized, could be sent to Iraq.”

“That's pretty close to a draft. Inactive reserves and the IRR are traditionally seen as "out of the service".”

“Oh whoopsie!



Military says it will consider call-up appeals

Lawmakers side with veterans after the Army concedes an enlistment deadline was in error

Thursday, May 20, 2004
RON SOBLE The Oregonian

SALEM -- Federal lawmakers Wednesday joined angry U.S. Army veterans in Oregon and other states who want their recent decisions to join active Army Reserve or National Guard units rescinded because they were based on mistaken information put out by recruiters.

U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio called on the Pentagon to correct the mistake that resulted in large numbers of Army veterans choosing a new assignment in active Guard and Reserve units.

"Faulty orders were sent out by the Army, which told people in the Individual Ready Reserves that if they did not re-enlist soon, the military would do so for them," DeFazio, D-Ore., said in Washington, D.C. "I would ask that these enlistments, which were made under a faulty order, be rescinded by the secretary of defense."

Meanwhile, the staff of Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, ranking Democrat on the personnel subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Army officials agreed Wednesday to establish an appeal procedure for any soldier in the ready reserve who signed up for service based on false information.

Inactive reservists who feel they were pressured to join active Guard or Army Reserve units should call state retention and transition offices, a staff memo said. In Oregon and Washington, that phone number is 800-347-2734, ext. 1, the memo said.

The miscommunication started last week when soldiers in the ready reserve began receiving e-mails and phone calls from military recruiters who told them they had until May 17 to leave their inactive status and sign up for Reserve or Guard units. Otherwise, the Army would make the choice for them, recruiters said.

Soldiers who have fulfilled their regular service commitment go on ready reserve. They are on inactive status in the ready reserve for as long as four years. They can be called back to active duty during that time. About 118,000 reservists are on inactive status nationwide.

In some cases, soldiers said, recruiters raised a potential rotation to Iraq as a reason to sign up for Guard units before the deadline.

Army officials this week told The Oregonian that the deadline was a mistake.

Screening under way

What is true, they said, is that thousands of inactive reservists in Oregon and across the country were being screened for certain occupations they held while deployed and that that screening would be completed in a few days.

Many reservists, however, who were bombarded by e-mails and recruiters' phone calls urging them to make a quick choice did join active Reserve or Guard units. News that the deadline was erroneous unleashed scores of calls to The Oregonian and to military officials from soldiers who said they felt coerced.

"I feel very shanghaied," said Jared Welsdutton, 25, of Spokane, who said he had decided to join a Reserve unit on Sunday.

A 23-year-old Portland man who served as an Army medic said he joined a Guard unit Monday. "I feel I was basically forced into it," he said. The man requested anonymity for fear of retribution.

Similar calls were made to Maj. Mark Ronning, Oregon's full-time National Guard judge advocate. The inquiries, he said, prompted him on Wednesday to call the head of the Oregon National Guard, Brig. Gen. Raymond Byrne, who was in Colorado.

Ronning said Byrne made clear that he doesn't want anyone to join an active unit against his will. "It was his intent not to force someone to be with the Guard if they feel they were strong-armed" into a unit, Ronning said.

Spike in enlistment

Ronning said he will meet with Byrne about the situation next week. More than 100 ready reserve soldiers have joined active Guard units in Oregon since last Thursday. That's an unusually large number. Normally, hardly more than a handful of recruits would have signed up in that time period.

More than 1,000 inactive reservists signed up for active units in the past week nationwide, also resulting in a larger-than-normal number, Army officials have said. But just how many states were affected was unclear.

"It seems to be happening in pockets," depending on how aggressively recruiters seized on misinformation about the deadline, said David DiMartino, a spokesman for Nelson.

Welsdutton said he had served three years on active Army duty as a cook and was serving out five more years on inactive status with one more year to go. Because recruiters emphasized that he had only until Monday to choose a unit -- which ultimately could be deployed -- he joined an active Reserve group Sunday.

"I'm rather upset," he said Wednesday. "I'm married and have a 19-month-old daughter."

A tearful Leah Lundy of Tigard said her husband, Dan, 24, was urged by an Army recruiter to beat the Monday deadline and activate himself in a Reserve unit.

Lundy said her husband was on active duty with the Army for four years but is in college now. He recently joined the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a civilian, she said.

To beat the deadline, she said, he joined a Guard unit in Forest Grove. "He wants to reverse it," she said. "He felt he was misled."

Maj. Arnold Strong, public affairs officer for the Oregon National Guard, said he learned of the deadline last week. He maintained Wednesday that Guard recruiters fully explained why it was important to make the choice.

DiMartino said while the Army agreed to set up an appeal process, it stopped short of promising to rescind a soldier's transfer decision. "What they're telling us is that if someone does instigate this proceeding, they're likely to have their commitment revoked," he said.

He said Nelson planned to follow up with a letter today asking that the Army formally spell out its response and explain how the mistake happened. So far, Army officials say they don't know how the miscommunication about the deadline began.”

“That's pretty close to a draft. Inactive reserves and the IRR are traditionally seen as "out of the service"."
Phaedrus
11:56:05 AM
05/20/04

Dang you are just hoping for a drfat arent you? IRR and Inactive Reserve are the same thing. Its interesting the key word to IRR was omitted in your post. IRR is Inactive READY Reserve, and is nothing at all like a draft.It only applies to soldiers who have enlisted of the own accord (since we dont and wont have a draft). The military (especially Air force,with pilots) has used this fairly often for retention. The sky isnt falling no matter how many times you scream that it is.

1. Bush wont start a draft since it would guarantee his loss this november.

2. Bush will lose november anyway

3. Kerry wont start a draft

4. A draft isnt going to happen.

All that is left is more wild speculation since a draft is not going to happen, regardless of how much its talked about.Its a career ender (except for those with wrangel who toss it about from time to time for more "face time") for any serious politician. And no politician wants to get a real job.`”

“BTW soldiers are made aware of IRR status upon enlistment. Its not some secret...”

“I draft Birch in my dodgeball army.”

“Oy.

Dang you are just hoping for a drfat arent you?

No, but there's enough of a possibility of it to make it a point of discussion. The draft review boards have been actively filled, senators have discussed the possibility in open forums and lawmakers have targeted people with skills the military has had a hard time retaining.

IRR and Inactive Reserve are the same thing. Its interesting the key word to IRR was omitted in your post.

Yeah, you're right. My bad. One thing, though, it's Individual Ready Reserve according to military.com.

IRR is Inactive READY Reserve, and is nothing at all like a draft.It only applies to soldiers who have enlisted of the own accord (since we dont and wont have a draft). The military (especially Air force,with pilots) has used this fairly often for retention. The sky isnt falling no matter how many times you scream that it is.

1. Pilots aren't enlisted, generally, so enlistment terms shouldn't apply to them. Where'd you get your information?

2. Being recalled to active service after separation, in my experience, at least, was highly uncommon. If this is happening more readily now, would it not be an indicator of a shortage of military personnel?

3. I'm glad you've got your mind made up that there will be no draft. I think that remains to be seen, and I believe the course of events in Iraq could very easily lead to a draft of, at least, special skilled individuals.”