Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

US military's 'Stop-loss' efforts

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Stop-loss efforts signal US military s struggle to shore up forces. http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0604/dailyUpdate.html June 4, 2004 Troop strain renews
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 3, 2004
      'Stop-loss' efforts signal US military's struggle to shore up forces.


      June 4, 2004
      Troop strain renews draft debate
      by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

      Should the United States reinstate a military draft?
      Even though the Associated Press reports that four out of five poll
      respondents say no to the idea, the Pentagon still seems to have
      trouble convincing the public it doesn't want a draft either. "I
      don't know anyone in the executive branch of the government who
      believes it would be appropriate or necessary," Defense Secretary
      Donald Rumsfeld said recently.

      Analysts say that the current strain on US forces, caused by wars in
      Afghanistan and Iraq and likely to continue for several more years to
      come, is one reason that talk of the draft has continued, despite
      public opinion. Only this week, ABC News reports, the Army issued
      orders to keep thousands of soldiers in the military longer than they
      may have planned (the so-called "stop-loss policy"), "in an effort to
      ensure there are enough combat-ready, fresh forces to continue
      serving in Iraq and Afghanistan."

      The Guardian reports that some critics have called this move a back
      door "return to the draft." In an opinion piece in Thursday's New
      York Times, Andrew Exum, a former army captain who served in the 10th
      Mountain Division in Afghanistan, called the treatment of soldiers
      under stop-loss programs "shameful".

      "Many, if not most, of the soldiers in this latest Iraq-bound wave
      are already veterans of several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan," he
      wrote. "They have honorably completed their active duty obligations.
      But like draftees, they have been conscripted to meet the additional
      needs in Iraq."
      Meanwhile, recruitment is down, particularly in the National Guard
      and Reserves. ABC reports, for instance, that recruiting for the Air
      National Guard is off by 23 percent. In an effort to maintain troop
      strength in Iraq, the US recently announced it was moving 3600
      soldiers from duty in South Korea to Iraq. Erich Marquardt, writing
      in Power and Interest News Report aargues that while the number of
      troops being moved will make little actual difference to the war in
      Iraq, it has enormous symbolic importance.

      This decision will spark many to argue that the administration of
      President George W Bush has made ill-fated policy choices that are
      causing damage to the US military establishment and also to US
      interests. Present conditions in Iraq mean that there will be no
      reduction in US troop levels there for some time; if anything, there
      will need to be an increase in troops. On May 19, General John
      Abizaid, the chief of US Central Command, warned that the United
      States "might need more forces" in Iraq. Such an increase would add
      even further strain to present US military deployments throughout the

      Regardless of the manpower problem in the military, Mr. Rumsfeld says
      he remains committed to a totally volunteer military, and doesn't see
      the need for a draft. He says the latest high amount of military
      activity is probably a temporary "spike." But some Democratic members
      of Congress believe that it's necessary to share the burden of
      fighting America's wars more equitably throughout the population.
      Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, and Democrat Sen. Fritz
      Hollings of South Carolina introduced a bill in the House and Senate
      last year, the Universal National Service Act of 2003.

      It would require "that all young persons in the United States,
      including women, perform a period of military service or a period of
      civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland
      security, and for other purposes." If approved, the measure would
      require citizens between 19 and 26 to serve two years of military or
      related service. But The Aberdeen News of South Dakota notes that the
      bill lacks even the support of Democratic minority leader Sen. Tom

      An editorial in The Sentinel of Carlisle, Penn., represents most
      public opinion about the draft. The paper declares that it
      is "sympathetic to the idea of shared sacrifice," but that there is
      no need for a draft.

      The number of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan is only about a tenth
      of the complete active-duty force, and there are any number of ways
      the military could maintain or increase the current Middle East
      complement if necessary. There's also the political equation. Four
      out of five Americans oppose the draft right now. To turn those
      numbers around, citizens would have to be convinced the country is in
      a deep and immediate danger. And now that we know nearly all the
      justifications for invading Iraq were inaccurate, we think the
      current administration would find it difficult to make that kind of
      case anytime soon. The draft is a tool of last resort for national
      defense. Thankfully, we're not at that point now.

      Some people argue, however, that the current attitude towards the
      draft indicates a lack of public spirit. Charles Moskos, a
      Northwestern University sociologist who studies military issues, said
      the draft is an idea "whose time may never come." But he also said
      the public's reluctance to accept a draft creates a condition
      of "patriotism lite" – people say they're patriotic but are "not
      willing to sacrifice anything." Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor
      for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, argues that the "sons and
      daughters of the working class" still bear too much of the burden
      of "defending freedom," while the children of the "affluent" are
      largely left untouched.

      And MSNBC reports on another group that believes the draft is a good
      idea: veterans of World War II gathered this weekend in France for
      the 60th anniversary of D-Day. Despite President Bush's recent speech
      comparing the war on terror to World War II, the men who fought that
      struggle say there are few comparisons, and that one of the biggest
      difference was the presence of the draft.

      "You can't have unity now [behind the Iraq war] when the public isn't
      participating in the war. There is no draft ... .So the war is being
      fought by a professional army," said Warren Josephy [captain of the
      187th Field Artillery Battalion when he landed at Omaha Beach on June
      8]. For Mr. Josephy, the very fabric of the military has changed
      because, "you don't get that rich man, poor man, college graduates
      mixing in with the working guy that you had then." Gardner Botsford
      [landed as a 2nd Lieutenant in the Intelligence section of the 1st
      Infantry Division at Omaha Beach on D-Day] concurred, "There should
      be a draft. I mean, if we are going to be serious about this military
      posture we seem to be adopting all over the world. There should be a

      Draft dilemma :

      They are going to reintroduce the draft in the US. But it's such a
      vote loser,
      no one wants to mention it


      John Sutherland
      Monday May 31, 2004
      The Guardian

      Last Wednesday, the American public was officially instructed to
      panic. Attorney general John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert
      Mueller - brows furrowed, faces grim - took over primetime TV to
      deliver a spine-chilling message to their fellow citizens: "Al-qaida
      attack imminent."
      When, where, and what form the outrage will take, is unknown. But
      something very, very awful is going to happen very, very soon.

      Cynics will be sceptical. Was this another attempt by the
      administration, like those "orange alerts" last year, to divert
      attention from Iraq, the soaring price of gasoline, and Abu Ghraib?

      On the same day that Ashcroft was terrifying his countrymen, I was
      emailed by an American student friend. He too is terrified. "The US
      legislature," he wrote, "is trying to bring back the draft asap.
      Check it out at www.congress.org. For some reason no major news
      networks or printed media in this country are carrying this story. If
      these bills go through, the only thing between me and military
      service is my asthma."

      He's right. There is pending legislation in the American House of
      Representatives and Senate in the form of twin bills - S89 and HR163.
      These measures (currently approved and sitting in the committee for
      armed services) project legislation for spring 2005, with the draft
      to become operational as early as June 15.

      There already exists a Selective Service System (SSS). All young
      Americans are obliged to "register for the draft". It has been a mere
      formality since conscription was abolished three decades ago, after
      Vietnam, together with the loathed (and much burned) draft card. SSS
      will be reactivated imminently. A $28m implementation fund has been
      added to the SSS budget. The Pentagon is discreetly recruiting for
      10,350 draft board officers and 11,070 appeals board members

      Draft-dodging will be harder than in the 1960s. In December 2001,
      Canada and the US signed a "smart border declaration", which, among
      other things, will prevent conscientious objectors (and cowards) from
      finding sanctuary across the northern border. There will be no
      deferment on higher-education grounds. Mexico does not appeal.

      All this has been pushed ahead with an amazing lack of publicity. One
      can guess why. American newspapers are in a state of meltdown,
      distracted by war-reporting scandals at USA Today and the New York
      Times. There is an awareness in the press at large that
      the "embedding" system was just that - getting into bed with the
      military and reporting their pillow talk as "news from the
      frontline". The fourth estate has failed the American public and
      continues not to do its job.

      The American public just wants the war to go away. One thing that
      would get their attention (but not their votes) would be their
      children being sent off to die in foreign lands. Best not disturb the
      electorate until after November, seems to be the thinking. There are,
      after all, more important things than wars: getting your man into the
      White House, for example. Kerry has clearly calculated that, as
      president, he too may have to bring in the draft. So his lips are
      also sealed.

      And, of course, the strategic case for the draft is overwhelming. If,
      as Rumsfeld promises, Iraq turns out to be "a long, hard slog", who
      will do the slogging? If others follow the Spaniards, and Tony Blair
      goes, the US may find itself a coalition of one. What then if
      something blows up in North Korea?

      On how many fronts can America fight its global war on terror with
      a "professional" army of half a million? Half a million and shrinking
      fast. Reservists are not re-enlisting. They signed up for the
      occasional weekend playing soldiers and some useful income, not death
      or glory.

      Panic Stations (which is where Ashcroft has placed America this
      summer) serves two purposes. It distracts the electorate and, like
      any state of emergency, it sanctions tough measures - like the draft.
      The advice to my student? Work on the asthma.



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.