 |
| |
|
|
Thorn
|
 |
Asheville, NC
May 1999
time: 00:35
|
|
We remember that Bush activited the draft boards many months ago for possible deployment.... as much as I'd like to agree with Ming that a draft would be political suicide, these people running this country are psychotic and will probably do it anyways. Besides once a draft is started, how would a president be viewed pulling out of it....DANGER DANGER DANGER!
quote:
Senator says US may need compulsory service to boost Iraq force
1 hour, 46 minutes ago Add Politics - AFP to My Yahoo!
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A senior Republican lawmaker said that deteriorating security in Iraq (news - web sites) may force the United States to reintroduce the military draft.
"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq.
"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."
The Nebraska Republican added that a draft, which was ended in the early 1970s, would spread the burden of military service in Iraq more equitably among various social strata.
"Those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and lower middle class," he observed.
The call to consider a imposing a draft comes just days after the Pentagon (news - web sites) moved to extend the missions of some 20,000 of the 135,000 US troops in Iraq.
Some critics of the US-led occupation complain that military planners used too few troops to subdue Iraq, and insist that more military muscle will be needed to restore order.
The US-led military coalition was put under further strain by the announcement this week by coalition members Spain and Honduras that they would withdraw their military contingents from Iraq.
Meanwhile, witnesses at the hearing, including academics and former US officials, expressed concern about ongoing flareups of violence in Iraq this month -- the bloodiest yet for US troops.
"I think it's clear that pressures in Iraq have reached the boiling point," said Samuel Berger, national security adviser during the Bill Clinton (news - web sites) administration, who called for an increase in troops there, and a "genuine, non-grudging effort to internationalize the enterprise in Iraq, both military and civilian."
"We've got to be prepared to give up our hammerlock on decision making in exchange for genuine burden sharing."
Richard Perle, a former White House adviser who currently serves as a fellow at a conservative think tank, advised against adding troops or extending the date of handover of Iraqi sovereignty beyond the currently-set June 30 date.
"It is essential that we not delay the handover of sovereignty set for the end of June, even if there is continuing violence by those who know they have no place in a decent, democratic Iraq," he said.
Perle also warned against entrusting the United Nations (news - web sites) with the post-occupation administration of Iraq, saying UN involvement should be kept at "an absolute minimum."
"A large UN contingent in Iraq ... would do more harm than good," Perle said.
"It would discourage the assumption of sovereignty by Iraqis themselves. It would drain resources urgently needed for the development of Iraq's economy," Perle said.
A senior Democrat meanwhile, lashed out at the White House for failing to send a top administration official to appear before the panel.
"I think it is outrageous that the administration has not provided every witness we've asked for," said Senator Joseph Biden, the highest-ranking Democrat on the committee.
"The fact that they are not prepared to send a witness means that they are either totally incompetent and they don't have anything to tell us ... or they're refusing to allow us to fulfill our constitutional responsibility" of congressional oversight, Biden said.
The committee's Republican chairman, Richard Lugar, also slammed the White House for "inadequate planning and communication related to Iraq."
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:35
|
|
This kind of talk will stay in Nebraska, especially if JFK has his way (and we all know he will).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
You're no fun. |
1. Hagel hardly speaks for the admin on foreign policy
2. This clearly isnt necessary. A. If we're having trouble with military and especially reserve recruitment, thats largely because we have kept the size of the active military the same during the WOT, and have rotated the same units, kept units overseas too long, called up reserves for too long etc. All of which could be remedied by enlarging the size of the active army - paradoxically, by increasing the number of slots to fill, youd make it easier too fill them. For reasons that arent quite clear to me, but which I suspect have to do with a fondness for advanced weapons systems and military reinvention in place of lots of ground pounders, Rummy has been slow to call for an Army expansion. Whatever the rationales there are for not expanding the army, they are dwarfed by the issues that come with reinstituting conscription.
B. If the strategy in A is inadequate, we can simply increase military pay, benefits, and enlistment and reenlistment bonuses. The US is CUTTING TAXES dammit!!!!! If we can afford that, we can afford to pay enough to make the military more attractive (and give every soldier in Iraq adequate supplies, dammit!!!)
C. And doesnt this sound like a good time to drop the stupid dont ask - dont tell rule??? If you want to serve your country, and youre capable of serving it, youre welcome to do so - period.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Bush plans world recruitment drive to arm for peace
April 20, 2004
The Washington Post
Facing a chronic shortage of foreign troops for peacekeeping missions, US President George Bush has decided to launch an international drive to boost the supply of available forces.
It calls for the United States to commit about $US660 million ($880 million) over the next five years to train, equip and provide logistical support to forces in nations willing to take part in peace operations.
The Global Peace Operations Initiative will be aimed largely at Africa. It will expand the peacekeeping skills of African forces and encourage international military exercises in the region, where US officials say much of the need exists.
But African forces developed under the program could be used in peace operations anywhere in the world, they said.
Pentagon officials stressed that Mr Bush wanted the plan to be a multinational push, with other countries contributing trainers and additional resources.
Many of the world's peacekeeping missions operate under the auspices of the United Nations, which now oversees more than 50,000 troops in 14 regions. The number is due to grow by about 20,000 as four more operations take shape in Haiti, Burundi, Sudan and Cyprus.
But efforts to meet this surge have been handicapped by the competing demands of US and NATO-led coalitions trying to stabilise Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans.
These operations have sapped troops and resources from the US, Canada and several European countries, which are the usual sources of support for UN peacekeeping missions.
"There is not enough capacity in the world to deal with the requirements," said the US Under-Secretary of Defence for Policy, Douglas Feith.
"Other countries have shown an interest in building up their peacekeeping forces, but they need help."
The Bush initiative's goal is to train about 75,000 additional foreign troops who could be sent on missions at short notice and perform a wide range of peacekeeping activities.
On Capitol Hill, a Democratic staff member with a Senate committee predicted the plan would receive broad bipartisan support. Several independent analysts also welcomed the initiative.
"This is an awakening for an administration that hadn't made peacekeeping a priority," said Victoria Holt, of the Henry L. Stimson Centre, a Washington research group. "They are recognising that if they want to have other countries participate in peacekeeping, they must provide more support."
Mr Bush's initiative stops short of establishing standing military units that would be devoted only to international peacekeeping.
It also makes no provision for creating forces within the US military that would be reserved for peacekeeping missions.
"We are always going to do our share of peacekeeping," said Joseph Collins, head of stability operations in the Defence Department.
"What we want to avoid is doing more than we have to." |
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-04-2004 23:24
I hope they do reinstate the draft. 
You honestly think Bush would institute a draft in an election year?! 
Homophobe. 
|