OPINION & EDITORIAL
Bush policy leads to conscription chatter
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Rob Deters:
- SUVs and Earth Day do not mix (April 24, 2003)
- Lawlessness reigns in halls of Congress (April 6, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Debates full of 'strategory' (September 27, 2004)
- Democrats scare voters with draft (October 18, 2004)
- Candidates spew monotone rhetoric in absence of much-needed Nader (October 4, 2004)
- Political debates lacking in debate (October 25, 2006)
- Bush erodes civilian military command (March 28, 2007)
by Rob Deters
Monday, October 18, 2004
It was an interesting and forceful point Bush made in two of the three debates. It's been a contentious issue that is the subject of much Republican hand wringing. It's the subject heading of a misleading but frightening email making the rounds on American college student's in-boxes.
The draft.
Bush pointed out in the debates that we would remain an "all-volunteer" army. Republicans in general have been worried sick about poll numbers that show, overwhelmingly, young adults between the ages of 18-25 think that Bush will reinstate the draft. The Republican Party is so scared it has sent a "cease and desist" letter to Rock the Vote for even discussing the draft issue.
It's all well and good that Michelle Malkin (Washington Times columnist, a poor Ann Coulter-lite and not a military specialist) says in reference to the draft "Not. Gonna. Happen." Apparently 75 percent of U.S. youth think it will. Why is this?
Well, you could posit that we're misinformed. After all, 18-25 year-olds are a coveted consumer demographic, but we're not known as doing a lot of heavy intellectual lifting. Maybe we're not using our intellect but our guts when we think about the draft.
The draft is such political Kryptonite that when Rep. Charles Rangel tried to get a bill to the floor that would address issues with the draft it was soundly trounced. He wanted to raise the issue though, fairly enough, that the draft disproportionately affects people of color and people on the lower end of the socio-economic ladder.
Bush insists there will be no draft, Rumsfeld insists there will be no draft, and most leaders involved in our current conflict think (and hope and pray) there will be no draft.
It's simply the people fighting it and the people who may have to fight it who think there will be a draft. That's a huge reality gap the President just doesn't seem able to close.
Last week there was the extraordinary story of a platoon of soldiers (Reservists, fittingly) who refused to go on a 200-mile round trip delivery of contaminated fuel in rickety trucks with no air or ground armor support. The soldiers were all briefly detained (or not, depends on who you believe, them or the military) and then released. The fuel was later delivered by a different platoon.
These soldiers are clearly in violation of military rules. Refusing to carry out a direct order is generally grounds for disciplinary action. However, the absurdity of it all has forced the military into a defensive posture and highlights what many feel is incredibly wrong in Iraq.
The soldiers said their orders were a "suicide mission." They were clearly disturbed by their inability to defend themselves, or the quality of the equipment they were using. Why couldn't they get armor support? Why didn't they have better equipment? Because we really are overextended in Iraq and the money, the vast amounts of taxpayer money, getting sunk into Iraq still isn't enough.
Why isn't it enough? Because contrary to Bush's insistence that we have a strong coalition (a clear falsehood so undercut by reality it's amazing he can maintain a straight face while saying it) we are virtually going it alone in Iraq.
I have a friend in the Special Forces just outside Ramadi. His emails are disturbing and desperate. He describes sleeping in his foxhole, driving into Fallujah to "create contact," which means getting shot at, and the lack of a clear understanding as to why they're even there present among almost all his fellow soldiers.
The same feeling permeates most of America's youth and about half of all voters. We simply cannot believe a single reason that the Bush administration offers us for why we are in Iraq. All reasons given have been proven irrefutably false from WMD's to connections with al-Queda to a quick and easy war followed by a self-paid reconstruction.
If the rumors of the draft won't go away it's not because of what the Bush Administration says, it's because of what the Bush Administration does.
By the way, a disturbing AP article this week fuels my October surprise lookout for the week. AP reporters said U.S. soldiers are under more frequent attacks from the Syrian border and that mortars have struck near U.S. soldiers (but caused no injuries) five times in the last week.
Will Syria, or perhaps Iran, be next on the list of nations that pose an "imminent threat?" Since this single-minded administration has shown us nothing to the contrary in fighting our global, never-ending, never-winnable war on terror, why shouldn't 18-25 year olds be afraid of a draft? How else could the current administration fulfill its goals without one?
Until that answer is given in concrete terms, and not the easily broken pledge of a president, I don't see how this president can expect America's youth to think otherwise.
Rob Deters (rvdeters@wisc.edu) is a third-year law student.
Lizzy Lanche (October 18, 2004 @ 8:07am):
But what about all the cute puppies that Rob Deters plans to put in the deep fryer? Now Rob denies that he has any plans to put puppies in deep fryers. In fact he may not own a fryer. OK, so maybe he's a vegetarian. But at this point can we trust Rob's word on the matter?
With enough repetition, I'm sure that we can overcome our total lack of evidence and force Rob to address this important issue.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 9:11am):
Wow Lizzy, kind of reminds me of...dishonorable service...didn't earn his Purple Hearts...shamed his fellow soldiers....if you're going to play the repetition until it's fact game, you're blaming the wrong side.
Republicans play that game better (and way dirtier) than Democrats.
Of course, you're not worried about this are you? You're not going to go over there...so this is sort of a game for you isn't it? Don't really care...can make light of it?
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 9:44am):
The fact is that only Democrats have introduced laws to begin the Draft, and it would require a law passed by Congress for conscription to begin.
I guess fighting the draft would be best served by electing Republicans to Congress. Vote Magnum for Congress!
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 11:28am):
Dave Magnum is a Republican lackey! I'll hire a RADIO DJ over a seasoned politco when hell freezes over. GO TAMMY!
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 11:37am):
Dave Magnum is a tool.
Tim Michels is a tool.
George Bush is a tool.
What do all Republican candidates have in common? They're all tools. If you don't want tools running the country, the solution isn't to vote for Republicans. Vote for Democrats.
Lizzy Lanche (October 18, 2004 @ 12:48pm):
The Swift Boat case was backed by affidavits signed by people who served with John Kerry, and by the public record of Kerry's statements and activities.
The draft rumors are backed by nothing but psychotic paranoia and political opportunism. See the difference? I didn't think so.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 1:42pm):
The Swift Boat story was funded entirely by Republican operatives, the same ones who smeared John McCain in 2000. These are people who contradicted their prior statements made years ago, but in 2004 "came out" to speak their minds once Texas Republicans had thrown tons of money at them. But I digress.
Rangl's draft was a symbolic protest--people in the U.S. like Lizzie can support the war because they(generally) pay no cost for it. Hell, Bush even cut their taxes before the war! Rangl's angry that the the army is disproportionately composed of minorities and the poor. If you argue out of context that "Democrats support the draft" because of this action, you're either an idiot, or a hack, or both.
Bush supporters are happy that Bush will take the war to the terrorists--where will we get the troops from? When will the reality of what is required to implement the "Bush doctrine" match the rhetoric? Moreover, given the extraordinary incompetence of the Iraq affair to date, the lack of WMD, the lies and misrepresentations about Saddam, why should young people believe anything Bush says on the matter?
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 1:52pm):
The Swift Boat story was funded entirely by Republican operatives, the same ones who smeared John McCain in 2000. These are people who contradicted their prior statements made years ago, but in 2004 "came out" to speak their minds once Texas Republicans had thrown tons of money at them. But I digress.
Rangl's draft was a symbolic protest--people in the U.S. like Lizzie can support the war because they(generally) pay no cost for it. Hell, Bush even cut their taxes before the war! Rangl's angry that the the army is disproportionately composed of minorities and the poor. If you argue out of context that "Democrats support the draft" because of this action, you're either an idiot, or a hack, or both.
Bush supporters are happy that Bush will take the war to the terrorists--where will we get the troops from? When will the reality of what is required to implement the "Bush doctrine" match the rhetoric? Moreover, given the extraordinary incompetence of the Iraq affair to date, the lack of WMD, the lies and misrepresentations about Saddam, why should young people believe anything Bush says on the matter?
Lizzy Lanche (October 18, 2004 @ 2:36pm):
So the Swift Boat ads were funded largely by Republicans. Were you planning to say anything even vaguely relevant to the question of whether their claims are TRUE?
I agree about Rangel, though. He was trying to make it more difficult to employ the US military. You may enjoy the fact that he was undermining the national defense during a time of war. I don't.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 2:42pm):
"...why should young people believe anything Bush says on the matter?"
For the same reason we shouldn't believe Kerry either. I give up trusting politicians. Once they get elected, they're set for life. What do they care about the folks who put 'em there? As for the draft, I'll dodge. It would be living dangerously, but then haven't we all been living dangerously for the last twenty-five years?
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 4:43pm):
George W. Bush: Worst President Ever
http://iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 5:47pm):
"Dave Magnum is a tool.
Tim Michels is a tool.
George Bush is a tool."
I daresay we can add Lizzy to this list too.
Michael Hanson (October 18, 2004 @ 6:36pm):
As a good friend of Rob AND a strong minded Republican, the only thing that I can say to all of you is that I'm disturbed that Rob can not see that his article only adds fuel to an undeserving fire. As for the rest of you that are criticizing him, this is the reason for political discourse in our country, the inability of today's youth to understand that there actually are multiple valid opinions in our society and it is to all of our benefits to listen to each other's opinions and work towards common ground. Here's my take, of course there won't be a draft, it's political suicide for either party to reinstate it.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 9:09pm):
I agree with Michael that it is political suicide to institute the draft. However, I agree with Rob that President Bush's plans bring us closer to a draft that do Kerry's. That's Rob's point, I think.
So what do we do? Pretend the issue isn't out there?
By the way Lizzy, you are so full of shit.
One of the Swift Boat Veterans LIED on his affadivt and is being investigated by the Oregon State Bar for doing so (he's a district attorney).
The Swift Boat Veterans are full of shit...and so is LIzzy.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 9:19pm):
Hey Mike! Thanks for the comment.
I sure agree with Mike that it's political suicide for either party to reintroduce the draft. That's why the draft bill proposed by Rangel died a 402-2 death. Couldn't be caught voting for a symbolic bill to bring back the draft!
But my point is what the above poster says it is....that the policies of the Bush Administration call for nearly ceaseless conflict that he insists is of a military nature.
I also was trying to make the point that Bush is having a hard time convincing young people that while he says he doesn't want a draft, what he does makes them think it's all but inevitable, and many of the posts here confirm that.
My OWN opinion is that there will not be a draft. While I hesitate to say this because 99% of what she says is biased or factually incorrect, Lizzy Lanche is right...we've maintained much larger standing armies in the past.
However. Those armies were not engaged in a global war on terrorism that involved direct and bloody conflict. Also our expenditures were enormous, and at rates that we cannot maintain with tax cuts where they are at.
Of course, you could argue this is the perfect storm for Republicans because it leads them to one place and one place only, the dismantling of the affirmative state.
In order to wage our war on terror, increase troop levels, and continue to take it to the bad guys, we simply eliminate all social programs, keep enriching the rich, and hope our country doesn't fall apart at the seams.
Lizzy is right that we could have a much larger army. This is namely because Bush's disastrous economic mishandling has created a huge number of unemployed young people who may find it preferable to die overseas than die the slow $6 an hour no-benefits death that is our current employment situation.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 9:20pm):
Goddamn it...I can't figure out why my own name doesn't appear in the heading, but this Rob Deters and I posted the last comment and this one.
Lizzy Lanche (October 18, 2004 @ 10:10pm):
Rob,
If you preview first then you can always put in your name.
It was nice of you to acknowledge the 402-2 margin. Given that Congress would have to take action, that makes your original fearmongering even more outrageous, however. Even if Bush went insane and asked for a draft, the chances of getting one would be vanishingly small.
You don't seem to understand the 1980's, though. The Left did a lot of fearmongering then, too. Our soft Western soldiers were no match for the efficient communists. In the event of a European war (which was basically inevitable because that madman Reagan wouldn't agree to a nuclear freeze) they would quickly be crushed beneath the Soviet juggernaut, dying by the hundreds of thousands. The Cold War was unwinnable, and the only path was accommodation. Yet the US managed to sign up enough soldiers for 18 divisions.
Oh, and don't worry, Rob. I won't hold the fried puppies against you.
Anonymous (October 18, 2004 @ 10:57pm):
Can everyone please agree that Rob Deters is probably the biggest fucking idiot on this planet. His knowledge of politics rivals that of Mr. Magoo. Granted, this is a pathetic liberal college paper and he is a nobody, but I would hope that the herald would want somebody who actually can attempt to be objective and valid with their points. It is funny how Rob blatantly ignores all of the continous negative things that are conducted by Kerry/Edwards and the democratic party as a whole. He insists on reporting on these "controversial" issues that in most cases have democratic origins, like the draft rumor. Anyone with a brain knows that President Bush has no plans to implement the draft. Even if he did, the chances of it passing both houses before reaching him are slim to none because it would be political suicide for any Representative or Senator. It would be nice for him to also acknowledge that many of this countrie's problems are left over from the shameful Clinton administration. Oh ya, Rob seems to always forget that something called 9/11 occurred a few years ago. Even though our economy isn't as bad as he is trying brainwash everyone into thinking (unemployment rate lower than any year during the Clinton administration) he still forgets that the major target of 9/11 was THE FINANCIAL CENTER OF THE WORLD. So, if the economy sufferred a little, it shouldn't take a brain surgeon to figure out why. I could go on for days about this loser but I have a life to attend to.
Michael Hanson (October 19, 2004 @ 3:19pm):
If you're going to post comments like the previous one, at least have the conviction to put your name on it.
Rob, Rob, Rob... you sweet liberal fool, writing for this overly biased (to my side that is) paper has made you overly cynical.
Let me explain the Rumsfeld plan to you. By creating smaller attack forces that can be based within our own borders instead of around the globe, allows the military to maintain it's current size and yet be more mobile and efficient to meet the needs of this "war on terrorism". The only need for sizable troop numbers arises when we are forced to occupy for an extended period of time, such as in Iraq. These occupying numbers can be made up of the extra forces that are currently in Germany and South Korea. The reason for the extended stays that our National Guard members are making now is because the implementation of this Rumsfeld plan to bring our soldiers home is just beginning. We will not be bringing them home from Iraq until our mission is accomplished, but I'm pretty sure das Fuhrer is dead.
It's the economy, stupid!
At some point, even smart liberals like yourself need to quit taking credit for Reagan's tax relief plans and quit blaming Bush for Clinton's inability to stabilize an economy that wanted to produce.
My last point for today... Rob, are you trying to say that volunteering in the army is better than volunteering to get out the vote? What $6 an hour job were you at? It's always easy for the studied and elite to bring up the poor. It's awfully hard to fall back into that bracket, but it's even harder to pull yourself out of it. The military provides one of the best options this country has for its lower tax bracket members to achieve new highs and yet, liberals such as yourself want no part of it. All jobs should be soft and fuzzy and fun and easy... well the world needs ditch diggers too!
