[Seattle-editorial] FP: US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005

[sheri at speakeasy.org]

I agree.

Soon after I sent this, I received another email talking about many of the points you bring out here Laury.


-----Original Message-----
From: Leif Utne [mailto:leif at utne.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 12:34 AM
To: 'Rick Ingrasci'
Cc: 'Invitational', 'hnet', 'natcap'
Subject: [Invit] Fwd: Retraction - Military Draft Highly Unlikely

Rick,

Note this email from John Steiner from a couple of weeks ago. He sent
out the same message you did, followed by the retraction below.

--
Leif Utne
Online Senior Editor, Utne Magazine
Co-coordinator, Let's Talk America
612.338.5040 x348
www.utne.com
www.letstalkamerica.org
--


Begin forwarded message:

From: John Steiner <steiner_king at earthlink.net>
Date: February 12, 2004 7:15:50 PM CST
To: Recipient List Suppressed:;
Subject: Retraction - Military Draft Highly Unlikely

Dear All:

It is so easy, and a little embarrassing, to forget to remember to do
full due diligence before jumping into fire engine mode!

As Gordon Adams* reports from a longer memo and confirmed by other
responses,

The Selective Service website, as I searched it this morning, describes
no such campaign... by the Pentagon.. .Both the President and the
Secretary of Defense have stated on several occasions that a draft is
not needed for the war on terrorism, including Iraq. 
 
 I reviewed the FY 2005 Budget Appendix just now and the Fy 2003-04-05
data show no increase; the SSS budget remains at $26 m, which is
slightly above the number it was at in the mid-1990s.   If there is any
addition, it may lie in the bills the author is discussing, but then
there is a problem.  The article says the addition was for FY 2004 -
but that would have to be a budget amendment or an emergency
supplemental. There is no record of such a supplemental.  So, as far as
I know, there has been no addition to the SSS budget for this purpose
(or any other purpose).
 
Again, I am not saying there is no issue here.  Rangel and Hollings,
not mentioned in the piece, are authors of the two bills (introduced
last year) noted in the text, not the administration. ((HR 163 is
Charlie Rangel's bill to reinstate the draft as a statement against his
perception that minorities are unfairly carrying the load of our
military adventures)). Both bills are pigeon-holed right now; there is
little appetite in the administration, I suspect, for raising this red
herring this year.  There is also little appetite in the Pentagon for a
draft - the officer corps prefers the volunteer army, does not want to
go back to training draftees. So far, enlistments are holding up,
despite Iraq (maybe partly because of Iraq - some folks like
deployments; they beat sitting around the base.)

Sincerely,
  John and Margo

*Prof. Gordon Adams
Director, Security Policy Studies
Elliott School of International Affairs
George Washington University
1957 E St., NW, Suite 501
Washington, DC 20052
Tel: (202) 994-7003
 
Gordon was also Associate Director for National Security and
International Affairs at OMB for the first five years in the Clinton
Administration.
 
 
 
 

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laury [mailto:webshiva at cablespeed.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 03:42 AM
> To: sheri at speakeasy.org
> Cc: seattle-editorial at indymedia.org, www-features at indymedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Seattle-editorial]  FP: US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005
> 
> The argument in this feature is pretty weak.  The "pending legislation" 
> has been languishing in the House and Senate for over a year.  The 
> House Bill was proposed by an opponent of the Iraqi war, Charles Rangel 
> of NY (and co-sponsored by Seattle's own Jim McDermott) PRIOR to the 
> invasion of Iraq:
> 
> http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR00163:@@@L&summ2=m&
> 
> The purpose of the bills was to freak out middle America -- to bring 
> home the idea that their sons  **and daughters** could be drafted, it 
> wouldn't be fault solely by an "all-volunteer" (read: poor, non-white) 
> army.
> 
> The U.S. may or may not be planning for military draft in the Spring of 
> 2005, but the smoking gun isn't in any of the links given in the 
> article. The link to the Selective Service performance plan includes 
> primarily service level goals (e.g., respond to letters faster, etc.) 
> -- no smoke, no gun, no secret plans in sight.
> 
> Other issues -- someone wrote this in 2003, and, if posted, the dates 
> would need to be edited (this year --> last year) to reflect the 
> passage of time.
> 
> On Feb 23, 2004, at 3:18 PM, sheri at speakeasy.org wrote:
> 
> > June 15,
> 
>