Politics: J'accuse!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
The House Armed Services Committee says 46% of the army reserves (meaning Ready Reserves, not the retirees) have been mobilized since 2001.

My understanding was that that's the number slated directly for Iraq/Afg, but that a significant number, reaching well into the Standby, had also been called, but used domestically to replace admin/operations functions vacated by active types going overseas. The remaining reserves are at the "not-quite-useable" stage due to training and funding deficits. So, there aren't many left to call up and send over.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
Rangel, too. Hell, Rangel didn't just talk about it, he introduced a bill to reinstate the draft before we even invaded Iraq:

Rangel was just making trouble. I thought Hegal was serious.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Rangel was just making trouble. I thought Hegal was serious.

Well, I don't know if it is a joke by Rangel or not, but the bill is still in committee and he is still talking about it. Hollings introduced a bill in the Senate.

http://www.semissourian.com/story.html$rec=135482

• Legislation to reinstate the draft is winding through Congress
  
  By Tony Rehagen ~ Southeast Missourian
  
  A steady stream of reports from Washington, D.C., and Iraq have national defense at the forefront of a lot of Americans' minds these days.
  
  But amid the military death tolls from the war in Iraq and Sept. 11 commission inquiries, many citizens may be surprised to learn there is legislation on the table that could put them in the middle of the issue, though local congressmen say its chances of passing are remote.
  
  In January 2003, Democratic Sen. Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, and Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York introduced bills to Congress -- Senate Bill No. 89, House Bill No. 163 -- that would reinstate the armed services draft in the United States for the first time since 1973. The legislation, which is being referred to as the Universal National Service Act, would make military service or alternative national service compulsory for men and women ages 18 to 26. It has recently been sent to the House Committee on Armed Services.
  
  In an editorial published in the Dallas Morning News on Oct. 22, 2003, the sponsors collaborated to defend their bill. In the opinion piece, Hollings and Rangel explain that the legislation to reinstate the draft is designed to "create a force size appropriate to meet the nation's expanding military obligations."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
this says so much more than you intended.

Please give me a little credit.

[Not Me]

I was up late last night and caught Vanunu's press conference when he was released from jail. This is an interesting story about the siren that lead him to Rome to be captured by the Mossad:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...bsection=world
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E2703,00.html

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
However, requiring longer terms of service (and, in the current case, that means recalling the independent ready reserves who are still formally "on call" but have already fulfilled their active duty requirements) would probably go over about as well as a draft, and would harm recruitment generally.

Speaking of the draft, Chuck Hagel is suggesting that maybe the draft needs to be reinstated. Friends of mine (mostly anti-war and anti-Bush) are incensed at the suggestion that they should be forced to "die for Haliburton." I'm not quite sure that it's a bad idea.

Edited to clarify the draft isn't a bad idea, not the dying for Haliburton.

I just thought you didn't like your friends. -- T.S.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
We are fucked if Canada decides to attack.

Or if we are hit by a massive terrorist attack and many of our first responders are in Iraq.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Speaking of the draft, Chuck Hagel is suggesting that maybe the draft needs to be reinstated. Friends of mine (mostly anti-war and anti-Bush) are incensed at the suggestion that they should be forced to "die for Haliburton." I'm not quite sure that it's a bad idea.

Edited to clarify the draft isn't a bad idea, not the dying for Haliburton.

Hi. STP. Rangel and Hollings didn't just suggest this. They introduced bills in the house and the senate to reinstate the draft.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Or if we are hit by a massive terrorist attack and many of our first responders are in Iraq.

See my "Iraq as Fly Paper for Terrorists" posts of yore.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Speaking of the draft, Chuck Hagel is suggesting that maybe the draft needs to be reinstated. Friends of mine (mostly anti-war and anti-Bush) are incensed at the suggestion that they should be forced to "die for Haliburton." I'm not quite sure that it's a bad idea.

Edited to clarify the draft isn't a bad idea, not the dying for Haliburton.

Initially I thought what you meant about "dying for Halliburton" is that Halliburton employees over in Iraq doing military support stuff (that in, e.g., WWI and WWII was done by the actual military) are getting killed, and of course thought "but have they assumed the risk?" Then I realized you were talking about draftees dying. Right?

[Berry Hunter]

Originally posted by Not Me
We are fucked if Canada decides to attack.

Dissent. Look at it as an opportunity to stick them with Detroit, Buffalo and Grand Forks, ND.

BH

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Interesting article in today's WaPo about growing concern in Congress over the need for a supplemental appropriation for the troops. Normally I'd say this is just election year posturing by the Dems but when a GOP congressman is using the "outrageous" and "immoral" terminology when referring to the lack of a supplemental I guess my ears perk up a little more.

Is there a reason besides election year politics why the admin would prefer to cannibalize the other maintenance-type accounts to fund Iraq until January? I can't think of one, but maybe someone out there has a better handle on this sort of thing. Perhaps BRC with all of her high priced subscriptions and her unlinked quotes (yes I'm bitter about the "post in this cesspool" comments).

Aside from that big-picture question, does anyone know if/how a supplemental appropriation like this could come to pass without admin direction? It seems to me that if Wolfowitz and the DoD want to keep saying they have anough money that they can grab from other "surplus" accounts, Congress won't be able to appropriate the money. Or maybe Congress can just appropriate for the unfilled budget needs for each service from the past fiscal year (as they're listed in the article).

Aside from that political stuff, the supply anecdotes are interesting as well. It's nice to see that we've taken steps to speed up production of the armored humvees of late.

edited to fix tags

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Speaking of the draft, Chuck Hagel is suggesting that maybe the draft needs to be reinstated. Friends of mine (mostly anti-war and anti-Bush) are incensed at the suggestion that they should be forced to "die for Haliburton." I'm not quite sure that it's a bad idea.

Edited to clarify the draft isn't a bad idea, not the dying for Haliburton.

I've posted my opinion on the subject here before, so hopefully you've all forgotten it already.

The draft should not be a lottery for *some* people to join the military. It should be mandatory national service for ALL able-bodies 18 year olds of sound mind, and they should do it for room, board and tuition.

The choices should be, essentially, between military service or a (perhaps longer or otherwise less materially beneficial) civilian service.

But part of Rangel's point is that the current system is absurdly unfair to certain groups who are most inclined to join the military and suffer for our nation's choices.

I'm sure if we all put our heads together, we could find a way to put 2 million 18 year olds to work every year. And it would give a lot of Americans a lot better sense of who their fellow citizens are.

So, as long as they aren't trying to jam 2 million kids into the infantry, I'm generally in favor of the concept. Strongly.

Hello

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
See my "Iraq as Fly Paper for Terrorists" posts of yore.

I hope you're right. And not just for the novelty.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The choices should be, essentially, between military service or a (perhaps longer or otherwise less materially beneficial) civilian service.

But part of Rangel's point is that the current system is absurdly unfair to certain groups who are most inclined to join the military and suffer for our nation's choices.

But the military leaders think that an all volunteer force is a better force. They don't want conscripts. They want volunteers for a reason.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'm generally in favor of the concept. Strongly.

Sure, now that you are outside the age group that would be affected by this. Were you for it when you were 18?

If this policy of forced labor were implemented, would you agree to let them at least drink legally to help them deal with it?