IRR Call-Up

[skunk]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/29/iraq.reserves.ap/index.html

Army to recall former military members

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 Posted: 12:43 PM EDT (1643 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army is preparing to notify about 5,600 retired and discharged soldiers who are not members of the National Guard or Reserve that they will be involuntarily recalled to active duty for possible service in Iraq or Afghanistan, Army officials said Tuesday.

It marks the first time the Army has called on the Individual Ready Reserve, as this category of reservists is known, in substantial numbers since the 1991 Gulf War.

The move reflects the continued shortage of troops available to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to fight the ongoing war on terrorism as well as Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Lt. Gen. Frank Hagenbeck, the Army's deputy chief of staff for personnel, said earlier this month of the Army's troop strength, "We are stretched but we have what we need."

Pentagon officials have echoed that statement explaining that while the military is reaching deep into its resources, war planners have long had contingency plans such as this for when troops are really needed....

I would imagine there will be a certain amount of "resistance" to this...

[zimv20]

fight the ongoing war on terrorism as well as Operation Iraqi Freedom
interesting how CNN draws the distinction

[blackfox]

At the end of same article...
The Army has been reviewing its list of 118,000 eligible individual reservists for several weeks in search of qualified people in certain high-priority skill areas like civil affairs.

This leads me to believe we are looking for help more with logistics, than for an extra guy with a rifle. As related to Skunks' question, I wonder what the demographics are of the 118,000 being looked at, in age, and employment. Knowing first hand how hard it is to secure a decent job in a professional field, I would wonder about having to forcibly give one up...as it has been shown that companies do not wait for you with open arms. I think this could make alot of people very unhappy.

[Stelliform]

I think this could make alot of people very unhappy.

My former neighbor is a former Marine. I think he just passed the period in which he could be called back. He never forgot that they could call him back for any reason during that period. He expected that he might get the call after Sept. 11th. I imagine that those who are being called half expected this. I don't know if they are happy about it, but I am certain that they shouldn't have been caught off guard.

[mactastic]

The 18-24 crowd shouldn't be too surprised when they start getting draft board notices soon either eh?. Sometime after November is probably the target date for the administration to announce it though.

Just another consequence if GWB is elected for the first time.

[Thanatoast]

If we've turned over authority to the Iraqis already, why do we still need civil affairs people? Shouldn't the "soveriegn" Iraqi government be hiring its own citizens in order to build its government? And now that the Iraqis are in charge, shouldn't we be seeing commensurate force reductions? After all, it's our troops who are drawing the most fire, so getting them out and letting the Iraqis run things would seem to be a high priority, wouldn't you think? Unless, of course, our goal isn't Iraqi freedom and self-rule?

[miloblithe]

The answer, of course, is that the Iraqis aren't in charge. Negroponte is. We have 5,000 staffmembers in the U.S. Embassy there. That's quite a few more than is needed for diplomatic relations.

I think we're a long way from the draft, but the short-of-the-draft measures are going to get more and more prevalent.

[tristan]

So your position is: GWB re-election = reinstated draft?

Do you seriously think there's even a 1% chance that this country will re-instate a draft? Or are you just taking an extremist position that you don't really believe for some reason?

[blackfox]

Well, I personally don't equate this with any potentiality of a draft...my line of thinking is that this would merely be to rotate out some of our soldiery who have been stationed in Iraq/Afghanistan much longer than they probably should have...and/or to give the US a little more flexibility and ability to regroup/retrain for slightly altered mission(s) ahead...and if it is merely this, then I agree with the idea, although as I mentioned above, I wonder about the disruption (economic) this will be for many Americans affected...

There is, of course, the chance that we may be gearing up for something else, either in actuality or just bringing troop levels up to a degree where we could credibly bluff such an option...I'm thinking Iran or Syria here...but I am NOT at this point seriously suggesting such a scenario, just a chance, which if there was another domestic attack (see zims cat thread), would be elevated to a real possibility.

There is also the question of whether there are plans/options to employ these people domestically in Homeland Security, as this is still an area where we are understaffed/underfunded...

end speculation...

[pseudobrit]

Look at the numbers. Draft is almost inevitable. If they're tapping the IRR, things are getting thin.

[zimv20]

welcome back, pbrit. thought you got disappeared or something :-)

[tristan]

"Draft is almost inevitable". Mmmmmkay.

You know that we still have tens of thousands of troops in Korea and Germany we could shift around?

You know that even if the military started a draft tomorrow, it would take six months before the first draftees ended up in Iraq?

You know that the whole US military is geared towards the professional soldier?

You know that the US public would vote anyone who agreed to a draft out of office, especially now that the legal voing age is 18? (It wasn't in the Vietnam era.)

You know that the number of countries that have compulsory service has dwindled to almost nothing? (AFAIK it's only Singapore and Israel now.)

So why do you think it's almost inevitable? Is this something you're rooting for or excited about? And why the "almost" if you're so sure? Would you bet money on the draft being reinstated within - say - 18 months?

[zimv20]

You know that we still have tens of thousands of troops in Korea and Germany we could shift around?

why was that not done instead of the IRR move?

[pseudobrit]

"Draft is almost inevitable". Mmmmmkay.

You know that we still have tens of thousands of troops in Korea and Germany we could shift around?

Aren't we planning on doing just that?

You know that even if the military started a draft tomorrow, it would take six months before the first draftees ended up in Iraq?

You know that the whole US military is geared towards the professional soldier?

Yes and yes. I also know that a military will need meat to throw at a guerilla war in order to sustain it.

You know that the US public would vote anyone who agreed to a draft out of office, especially now that the legal voing age is 18? (It wasn't in the Vietnam era.)

I thought the US public would vote anyone who waged an unnecessary war predicated on a lie out of office. The polls show that the public are willing to tolerate such things.

If I have any faith in the Bush administration, it's that they will always find a way to frighten and confuse enough the public to support them enough to get away with just about anything.

You know that the number of countries that have compulsory service has dwindled to almost nothing? (AFAIK it's only Singapore and Israel now.)

How many countries currently have 100,000+ troops deployed in hostile combat in separate theatres?

So why do you think it's almost inevitable? Is this something you're rooting for or excited about? And why the "almost" if you're so sure? Would you bet money on the draft being reinstated within - say - 18 months?

I'm good for $5 on a piece of that action. I'm not excited about it but I'm sure it's going to happen. I just don't see how we can stretch things much thinner.

These guys have to rotate out, and the occupation promises to last years. Their obligations run out eventually. They're already using the Guard, the Reserves, stop losses, reassignment, and now IRR. What's the next logical step?

[pseudobrit]

welcome back, pbrit. thought you got disappeared or something :-)

No, but my iBook did. The display wiring to be precise. I finally sat down this evening and fired up my soldering iron.

[pseudobrit]

why was that not done instead of the IRR move?

We're reducing the number of troops in Korea. I know a guy who was stationed there, came home on rotation, and was stop-lossed. He's probably in Iraq by now; he was reassigned.

[Sayhey]

"Draft is almost inevitable". Mmmmmkay.

You know that we still have tens of thousands of troops in Korea and Germany we could shift around?

You know that even if the military started a draft tomorrow, it would take six months before the first draftees ended up in Iraq?

You know that the whole US military is geared towards the professional soldier?

You know that the US public would vote anyone who agreed to a draft out of office, especially now that the legal voing age is 18? (It wasn't in the Vietnam era.)

You know that the number of countries that have compulsory service has dwindled to almost nothing? (AFAIK it's only Singapore and Israel now.)

So why do you think it's almost inevitable? Is this something you're rooting for or excited about? And why the "almost" if you're so sure? Would you bet money on the draft being reinstated within - say - 18 months?

One problem with your analysis is if the Bush administration is reelected it doesn't need to worry about the reaction of a new draft on the 2008 Presidential election.

It is clear that the Bush doctrine does not end in Iraq. US military intervention is possible, even likely, in some of the following nations - Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Sudan. If even one of the those countries is invaded by US forces, just how stretched will our military be? The answer for the neoconservatives who wish to reorder the world in their dream image may well be the draft. My hope is they won't get the chance to try.

By the way, you are just flat out wrong on your estimation of countries which still have a draft. Here is a link from the UN on the subject (from a easy google search.)

THE QUESTION OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO MILITARY SERVICE (http://teenadvice.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://hri.ca/fortherecord1997/documentation/commission/e%2Dcn4%2D1997%2D99.htm)

[LethalWolfe]

Look at the numbers. Draft is almost inevitable. If they're tapping the IRR, things are getting thin.


Granted this is a very different situation than the first Gulf War but the IRR was dipped into then as well.


Lethal

[CramSoup]

although the US Air Force does not partisipate in a draft, I find it funny that people think a draft is on the way. The Air Force has had an enlistment freeze for the last 3 months. And is cutting back recruits by almost half for next year!!!
a draft.....NEVER!!!!!

[zimv20]

a draft.....NEVER!!!!!
are you saying the AF won't have a draft anytime soon (never is a long time), or that because the AF has an enlistment freeze, no branch of the armed forces will have a draft anytime soon?

[Voltron]

although the US Air Force does not partisipate in a draft, I find it funny that people think a draft is on the way. The Air Force has had an enlistment freeze for the last 3 months. And is cutting back recruits by almost half for next year!!!
a draft.....NEVER!!!!!
Also while someone posted a link stating Army enlistment is down they were already at 99% full enlistment and the year ends for them I think in October, maybe sooner. So only reason they would need to increase that is if we are going to increase our standard standing strength.

[blackfox]

although the US Air Force does not partisipate in a draft, I find it funny that people think a draft is on the way. The Air Force has had an enlistment freeze for the last 3 months. And is cutting back recruits by almost half for next year!!!
a draft.....NEVER!!!!!
This may be simplistic, as I admit I am not an expert in the Armed Forces, but...is there not a limit to the air force personnel you can have, as related to the amount of planes, and logistic support needed for them? The Marines and the Army OTOH could need a larger supply of groung forces (Grunts) which are not tied to expensive hardware, and used more heavily than say the Navy and AF, especially in Urban Warfare?

[CramSoup]

The possibility of being called up from IRR is a very long shot, but it is part of your original commitment!!!! Eveyone has an 8 year commitment 2 active + 6 IRR. 4 active- 4 IRR etc.
It's kinda like joining the guard or reserve, having them pay for all your college and training then crying that you have to put on your uniform and deploy!!! It's what you signed up for !!!!
I didn't mean ther will "never" ne a draft, that was loose, but there won't be one in this conflict.
Bill Clinton deployed more troops while in office,then Bush 43 has!

[zimv20]

Bill Clinton deployed more troops while in office,then Bush 43 has!
that surprises me. please substantiate.

[Anonymous Freak]

A friend of mine was in Air Force ROTC on a scholarship while in college, but dropped out during his third year. He had already gone to basic training (which AF ROTC sends you to between your second and third year,) so he had technically been enlisted. (After you graduate, they are given a commission and you are then officially an officer.) Well, because he was enlisted (meaning he is subject to military discipline,) and because he owed back his scholarship, he was placed in the IRR.

He was officially on IRR status for 8 years, or until he paid back his scholarship, whichever takes longer.

The 8 years was up last December, and he paid off the scholarship in March. Had he not paid it off, he would probably be on his way to Iraq soon.

That said, another close friend (of both of ours,) lost one of her high-school sweethearts in Iraq about a month ago. (She hadn't seen him since high school, but it still hit her hard.) She had been looking forward to seeing him at her upcoming high school reunion. (She didn't know he was in Marines.)

[CramSoup]

A friend of mine was in Air Force ROTC.....
The 8 years was up last December, and he paid off the scholarship in March. Had he not paid it off, he would probably be on his way to Iraq soon.
)
Yes he had to pay backhis IRR time od scholarship, but as you stated, he was in the Air FOrce and not the Army....
The Army was calling IRR Not the Air Force!!!

Sorry for your loss!!! I Salute HIM!!!!!!

[zimv20]

link (http://www.iht.com/articles/527445.html)


Abuzz about the draft


Brian Knowlton/IHT IHT
Thursday, July 01, 2004


As U.S. recalls troops, rumors surge
*
WASHINGTON Amid fears of open-ended military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ever more urgent-sounding indications of how stretched U.S. forces are around the globe, rumors that the military draft might be reinstated have surged across the United States, moving in recent months from obscure Internet sites into the mainstream media.

Though repeatedly denied at almost every level of government - from the White House to the Pentagon to the agency that would handle a draft, the Selective Service - the rumors have grown rather than faded. Whether founded or not, this raises the prospect that the rumors might influence voters in November. The news on Tuesday that the U.S. Army would invoke a rare wartime program to call back soldiers who had already left the service and did not join the reserves added to the chatter.

That followed other extraordinary measures, such as barring soldiers from leaving the service at the end of their normal service period, and shifting thousands of troops from South Korea to ease pressure elsewhere. Internet sites and mass e-mailings have seized on the known facts and then elaborated, at times, with half-facts and speculation.

Some of the electronic messages say that legislation is secretly being prepared, or that the draft could return by next June, or that people as old as 34 could be tapped. If the draft were reinstated, it would almost surely be dramatically different in one way from the Vietnam-era conscription: young women as well as young men would be affected, raising further concerns.

Talk of a revived draft - which would be the first since 1973, when mandatory service was ended in the waning days of the Vietnam War - has become so widespread that the Selective Service Web site has prominently posted, on its home page, this message: "Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces - either with a special-skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new." As the site points out, President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld have insisted more than once that neither the Iraq war nor the ongoing war on terrorism had raised a need for a draft. Rumsfeld has said that recruitment continues at a healthy pace.

The draft buzz may have begun in November, when a Pentagon-related Web site advertised for civilians to fill openings on local draft boards, which


A widespread rumor held that budget had been increased by $28 million to allow for a draft reinstatement. But Amon said that was a gross misunderstanding: Bush had proposed a $28 million total - not increase - but Congress had left the budget at the $26.3 million, where it has stood for years.


Even if the administration has no plans to restore the draft, the stiff demands on the U.S. military have led many to speculate that it might be reinstated after the Nov. 2 presidential election, possibly regardless of who wins. Re-enlistment levels have fallen as violence and chaotic conditions plague U.S. forces in Iraq. The military's reliance on reservists and national guards members has grown substantially. And no one in the administration has predicted any sizable troop decrease in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Bush and Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, his presumptive Democratic opponent, have given support to enlarging the military - in fact, the Senate voted overwhelmingly this month to expand the army by 20,000 - but neither man has spoken the D-word, which analysts say could be political suicide in an election year.

[tristan]

Excellent article! Yeah, draft would definitely be political suicide - especially for a republican. Voter turnout for people under 25 is like 30%, that would kick it up to 100%. A draft would also screw up the economy big time.

People who think it's going to happen are overreacting and just like fantasizing about our country going to hell in a handbasket because Bush policies sent it there. They're the same people who said that the Afghanistan war was unwinnable or that we'd never catch Saddam or that hundreds of dead soldiers a week would be coming back from Iraq. I'm not a Bush fan but I don't have to reach for absurd arguments like widespread military invasions resulting in a draft to justify my opposition.

[pseudobrit]

People who think it's going to happen are overreacting and just like fantasizing about our country going to hell in a handbasket because Bush policies sent it there. They're the same people who said that the Afghanistan war was unwinnable

Ah, yes, Afghanistan.

The shining example of US victory. We sure won that one. And Iraq.

And beleive me, I don't "like fantasizing" about this country going to pot. I do hate seeing it happen for real.

[skunk]

People who think it's going to happen are overreacting and just like fantasizing about our country going to hell in a handbasket because Bush policies sent it there.
It's not just your country being Shrubbed, you know.

[tristan]

Ah, yes, Afghanistan.

The shining example of US victory. We sure won that one. And Iraq.


Okay, you win, we lost the war in afghanistan. The taliban still run the place. Karzai isn't president. Free elections aren't coming later this year. Yep, you're right.

And iraq. We lost that one too. Saddam's still in charge. Silly me.

So remind me again - did we lose WWII? WWI? Revolutionary?

I give up - you're seeing things through some weird goggles.

[skunk]

Okay, you win, we lost the war in afghanistan. The taliban still run the place.
A large part of it, yes. The rest is run by the same vicious and venal warlords who ran it before the Taleban.

Karzai isn't president.
Karzai is a puppet.

And iraq. We lost that one too.
I'd say the jury's still out on that one. Doesn't look too good from here.

[Voltron]

A large part of it, yes. The rest is run by the same vicious and venal warlords who ran it before the Taleban.


Karzai is a puppet.


I'd say the jury's still out on that one. Doesn't look too good from here.
Well the alternative is that Afghanistan becomes the 51st state. You might not like the choices but their all we got.

[mactastic]

No, the alternative was to invade Iraq. Resources were pulled AWAY from the real WOT and were re-directed towards an UNNECESSARY war. As a result, the only thing getting done in Afghanistan is the road from north to south that will allow the heavy trucks necessary to build and maintain an oil pipeline. Claiming any sort of victory in Afghanistan is grossly premature. BTW, where is UBL these days?

Your contention that the only other choice in Afghanistan between the half-assed reconstruction we're doing and annexing it as our 51st state is ridiculous and simplistic.

[pseudobrit]

Okay, you win, we lost the war in afghanistan. The taliban still run the place. Karzai isn't president. Free elections aren't coming later this year. Yep, you're right.

The Taleban is regaining control and the warlords have the rest. Opium production is back in full swing. The general state is that we brought freedom and democracy to a small area around Kabul.

And iraq. We lost that one too. Saddam's still in charge. Silly me.

Just because Saddam's not in control anymore doesn't mean Iraq is a free and democratic nation.

So remind me again - did we lose WWII? WWI? Revolutionary?

Those would be examples of US victory (well, less so with WWII and especially WWI, which were allied efforts in which we seem to forget the help we got from our allies).

Did we lose Vietnam?

I give up - you're seeing things through some weird goggles.

If you call trying to look at the upshot wierd, then I guess you're right. I don't see wars in such clear cut ways where "victory" is an absolute.

[tristan]

If you call trying to look at the upshot wierd, then I guess you're right. I don't see wars in such clear cut ways where "victory" is an absolute.

The Afghanis are people who have lived under civil war and a brutal regime. That civil war is over and that regime is gone. That's why I, and 99% of the world, calls it a victory.

If your definition of victory is that Afghanistan's becomes as safe and free as, say, downtown San Francisco, then okay, we failed. But all you've done there is raise the bar unnecessarily high so that Afghanistan doesn't meet your standards of a victory. "Yes, but opium production's up." There will always be something to criticize, but you have to look at the big picture.

Afghanistan is about as stable as Pakistan or Indonesia, which is a huge improvement. If in a few years it's as stable as, say, Jordan or Kuwait, that would be incredible. This is the middle east we're talking about here - any kind of democracy, stability, and freedom is a huge step in the right direction. I hope that you would acknowledge that.

[zimv20]

The Afghanis are people who have lived under civil war and a brutal regime. That civil war is over and that regime is gone.
the taleban came to power because they were able to stabilize afghanistan. pre-taleban, afghanistan was run by warlords, which is how afghanistan is being run right now outside of kabul.

"Yes, but opium production's up." There will always be something to criticize, but you have to look at the big picture.
we are looking at the big picture. the removal of the taleban didn't solve all of afghanistan's problems, it merely solved the taleban problem. so in that specific regard, the operation was of moderate success. overall, the country is still very unstable, far less so than pakistan and not even comparable to india. outside of kashmir, do you truly believe india is not very stable?

[Voltron]

we are looking at the big picture. the removal of the taleban didn't solve all of afghanistan's problems, it merely solved the taleban problem. so in that specific regard, the operation was of moderate success. overall, the country is still very unstable, far less so than pakistan and not even comparable to india. outside of kashmir, do you truly believe india is not very stable?
I don't think the purpose of the war was to "solve all of their problems." They need to solve their own problems. We are on the path to solving some of ours by removing the taleban.

[zimv20]

I don't think the purpose of the war was to "solve all of their problems." They need to solve their own problems. We are on the path to solving some of ours by removing the taleban.
that sounds like less of a commitment than:

BUSH RENEWS PROMISE TO AID RECONSTRUCTION OF AFGHANISTAN

(U.S. assistance detailed at White House ceremony)

By Wendy S. Ross
Washington File White House Correspondent

Washington, October 12, 2002 -- President Bush, at a White House ceremony October 11, reaffirmed the long-term commitment by the United States to help reconstruct Afghanistan and urged other countries to honor their financial commitments to the Afghan government.

"If you say you will help the Afghanistan people, do it," Bush said. He did not single out any nation.

The event highlighted U.S. efforts over the last year -- since allied forces routed the Taliban from Afghanistan -- to bring peace and democracy to Afghanistan and to improve life for the people of Afghanistan through food, education and health programs.

"Afghanistan has entered a new era of hope," Bush said. "We want to continue to be a part" of that.

"There's still a lot left to do," the president said. "There's still a lot of work to do in Afghanistan to achieve our dreams -- and more importantly, the dreams of the Afghan people.* Today, America affirms its full commitment to a future of progress and stability for the Afghan people."

Bush said the United States is keeping its pledge to spend, along with other countries, more than $4,500 million over the next five years to help Afghanistan recover. The United States, he said, is currently implementing more than $300 million in recovery and rehabilitation programs there. In addition, Bush said, U.S. children have donated more than $10 million under America's Fund for Afghan Children that he announced last year. "That's a lot of kids working hard to collect money," Bush said.

"We went into Afghanistan to free people, because we believe in freedom. We believe every life counts. Every life matters," Bush said. "So we're helping people recover from living under years of tyranny and oppression. We're helping Afghanistan claim its democratic future."

(more)

link (http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh02101203.html)

[Voltron]

that sounds like less of a commitment than:

link (http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh02101203.html)
Bush has to be politically correct :(

[zimv20]

Bush has to be politically correct :(
that's quite a distinction. i notice that the terms "lying" and "flip-flopping" were not used.

[Voltron]

that's quite a distinction. i notice that the terms "lying" and "flip-flopping" were not used.
You might think your candidate, Kerry, is perfect. I don't think Bush is so perfect, he's simply the best guy running for the job. It is not my fault we don't have better choices. If you want you could always write me in on the ballet. I think I would be the best candidate for the job, as long as I hired well qualified advisors that is.

[LeeTom]

If you want you could always write me in on the ballet. I think I would be the best candidate for the job, as long as I hired well qualified advisors that is.

Now I'm scared!!!

Lee Tom

[tristan]

outside of kashmir, do you truly believe india is not very stable?

Kashmir's the worst of it of course, but India's had its share of massacres and unrest. Wasn't the parliament shot up by terrorists a couple of years ago?

[tristan]

the taleban came to power because they were able to stabilize afghanistan. pre-taleban, afghanistan was run by warlords, which is how afghanistan is being run right now outside of kabul.

Yeah, they stabilized the country after a bloody civil war with the northern alliance. They were fighting those guys for years.


we are looking at the big picture. the removal of the taleban didn't solve all of afghanistan's problems, it merely solved the taleban problem. so in that specific regard, the operation was of moderate success.

A moderate success ... is that the same as a moderate victory? Who said we needed to solve all of the world's problems to achieve victory? let's leave something for the UN to do. :-)

[blackfox]

the taleban came to power because they were able to stabilize afghanistan. pre-taleban, afghanistan was run by warlords, which is how afghanistan is being run right now outside of kabul.


we are looking at the big picture. the removal of the taleban didn't solve all of afghanistan's problems, it merely solved the taleban problem. so in that specific regard, the operation was of moderate success. overall, the country is still very unstable, far less so than pakistan and not even comparable to india. outside of kashmir, do you truly believe india is not very stable?
In your first paragraph, you are correct zim...It is interesting to note that Afghanistan has never been conquered over it's history. While the various tribal groups and the seven or so resistance parties were able to repel the Soviets, they were unable to govern effectively, riven by tribal disputes and banditry, basically lawlessness. Originally, the Taleban were welcomed by Afghani leaders, and were respected. Then things began to change...

The thing not noticed, is Pakistans' role in all of this. There are many who consider that Pakistan and Afghanistan should be considered one Political Unit, if not also a geographical one. This stems in part from Pakistans heavy invoolvement in the Afghani guerrila war against to Soviets, and in part from English colonial history. Pakistan has a vested interest in the stability or assimilation of Afghanistan.

After the Soviet war, the ISI (Pakistani Intelligence) continued its' support of Hekmatyar, one of the leaders of the resistance movements. This was because he was not very respected in his own country, and needed the support that ISI could offer. Unfortunately, because of his lack of respect/power, he was unable to stabilize post-war afganistan.

It was Bhutto, the prime minister of Pakistan, along with the Interior Minister, who conceived of the Taliban as a solution to Afghani stability, and they began providing food, money, vehicles, weapons, subsidized wheat and volunteers from Pakistani madrassas. It was these volunteers, which many in Afghanistan say changed the flavor of the Taliban to the extremism they are now known for...

This was all done to secure land routes to the new oil-states of Central Asia, and create a Muslim bulwark to possibly confront India.

Now that CIA and ISI money has dried up, and the Taleban has been forcibly removed, power has gravitated back to Tribal heads, as it always has been in Afghanistan. The resurgence of the Taleban in the area can be seen in part as a renewed effort of Pakistani domination of Afghanistan, with money and support for the Taleban coming from the extensive network of madrassas, and probably at least complicity from the Pakistani government...or from their inability to police their own territory, paricularily the Northern Frontier.

Anyway, back to the US...The US goal, I believed, was to eliminate the Taleban control of Afghnistan, ostensibly for the benefit of Afghanis, but really as a retaliation for their association with UBL, and porviding him a base w/in Afghanistan. We accomplished this. We, as noted, also secured the Capital, and the main road along the oil pipeline. This gave us the stability and logistic support for the economic interests in the region. That was all we wanted. As our interest dove-tail with Pakistans', we also enjoy an amount of influence and leverage with them, and in the Region...

The rest of the country is ruled by warlords and tribal leaders, who do not particularly like the Taleban after their presence and generally like and respect Karzai, as he is Afghani royalty (he is head of the 500,000 strong Pashtoon clan of Durrani, a Persian army commander who became the first KIng of Afghanistan in 1747)...because tribal position is very important in Afghan society, the fact that he is westernized and moderate, does not detract from that respect.

So, the US has done a good job...unless you feel that our goal was a human-rights overhaul and a full-western Democracy...but Afghanis know how to fight, and an occupation required to acheive those goals, would've screwed the ones we did acheive...

If only we were that smart in Iraq...

Sorry for the long post, Afghanistan has long fascinated me...

[mactastic]

You might think your candidate, Kerry, is perfect.

Talk about putting words in someone's mouth. Zim, did you EVER argue that Kerry was perfect? Cause if you did, I sure missed it. :p

My straw man alert went off big time here.

[skunk]

Sorry for the long post, Afghanistan has long fascinated me...
Thanks for the background. :)

[tristan]

Yeah, very interesting blackfox.

[Ugg]

If you want you could always write me in on the ballet.

I always enjoy the Nutcracker at X-mas time, and I've always wanted to see Rodeo by Aaron Copland. Do you have any favorites you could recommend?

[sorryiwasdreami]

So your position is: GWB re-election = reinstated draft?

Do you seriously think there's even a 1% chance that this country will re-instate a draft? Or are you just taking an extremist position that you don't really believe for some reason?

Actually, although it sounds very pessimistic, I feel a reinstatement of the draft is not too out-of-the-question. We know the situation is becoming worse when the military is striving to recall retired military personnel.

Once sources dry up for these military retirees, as well as reserves, and possibly ROTC’s (?), what other source can they devitalize besides a re-instating of the feared draft?

To clarify, I mean "dry up" as in creating a presence of the US military and adding resources, not necessarily soldiers being maimed or killed.

If George W. Bush is (re)elected to serve a second term, it's possible we could see situations such as this arise. His position is to occupy Iraq and the mid east for the long term.

Of course, I hope a draft doesn't happen; with military enlistment apparently on the rise:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_numbers_041404,00.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl

it should facilitate. However, will the rate at which new enlistees enter the military surpass the rate the US administers more resources?

[sorryiwasdreami]

You might think your candidate, Kerry, is perfect. I don't think Bush is so perfect, he's simply the best guy running for the job. It is not my fault we don't have better choices. If you want you could always write me in on the ballet. I think I would be the best candidate for the job, as long as I hired well qualified advisors that is.

Ralph Nader is running for the Green Party. Last election he received 6% of the vote, which is notable for a third party candidate. I would say he is the best choice among the candidates for this term's race, however, you may ask "how realistic is a vote for the Green Party?"

To some degree, I agree, which is why I am going to vote for Kerry. But, until we stop harboring that mentality, we are not going to be living in a truely "democratic, cooperative, cleaner, safer world where we the people, not the corporations, make the decisions that affect our lives." - http://www.greenparty.org/

[blackfox]

Ralph Nader is running for the Green Party. Last election he received 6% of the vote, which is notable for a third party candidate. I would say he is the best choice among the candidates for this term's race, however, you may ask "how realistic is a vote for the Green Party?"
]
Actually, Nader was denied endorsement for the Green Party this time around. Their nominee is David Cobb. Nader is running for the Reform Party, started by Perot, and also featuring Buchanan as nominee a few elections back.

While Nader may have gotten 6% of the vote in 2000, he was on 43 state ballots. The Green party currently is registered in 21 states w/ Cobb. Nader and the Reform Party are on seven. There are petitions in several swing-states (Oregon, Wisconsin, Arizona) to get him on the ballot, in some cases with GOP grass-roots action. As of this writing, he has been denied a place on the ballot in Arizona by court ruling. There are several issues at hand with GOP aid to his campaign which may be in violation of Election Laws both for the GOP and the Nader campaign.

I think Nader is a good consumer advocate, and had his shot in 2000, but it is time to pass the torch to another third-party candidate. His race this time round, is imo, an embarrassment.

[sorryiwasdreami]

Actually, Nader was denied endorsement for the Green Party this time around. Their nominee is David Cobb. Nader is running for the Reform Party, started by Perot, and also featuring Buchanan as nominee a few elections back.

Thanks for the clarifications, blackfox; I was misinformed. Although my knowledge about David Cobb is limited, he was asked by Nader to manage the Green Party efforts in Texas. I believe him to be a trusted and praiseworthy entrant among Greens. --Speaking from an iconoclastic view Greens had for Nader; now Nader is believed to be Cobb’s biggest contender.)

Surprisingly here in Pennsylvania, support for Nader in this race was approaching 10% at the end of May. However it is extremely hard, as I’m sure you well know, for an independent candidate to be placed on the presidential ballot. In fact, here in PA they need 26,000 signatures, while a republican or democrat only needs 2,000. Is that just?

Personally, I would have voted for Howard Dean at the drop of a hat in this election.

[blackfox]

As to the potential of a draft, here is an article from the NYT...below is the first page, the second page will be in the following post for reasons of length.

Sorry to take up so much space, but people are afraid of registrations...

WASHINGTON, July 1 — The Pentagon says no. The Selective Service System says no. And Congressional leaders say absolutely not.

Yet talk of reinstating the military draft persists around the country, driven by the Internet, high-profile moves by the military to shore up its forces and fears that all those solid reassurances about no need for conscription could quickly melt away if world events took a turn for the worse.

Advertisement

"The mood of, if not the country but a significant plurality of the country, is highly skeptical," said the founder of StopTheDraft.com, Barry Zellen, who has seen traffic to his site jump in recent months. "If the world spun madly out of control, where would they get the boots on the ground?"

Congressional aides say their offices receive a steady stream of telephone calls and e-mail messages inquiring about the status of the draft. Lawmakers themselves are regularly asked if Congress is preparing to re-establish the system, abolished by President Richard M. Nixon 31 years ago.

"Everyone says, `We've got young children, and we don't want them in the draft,' " said Bill Ghent, a spokesman for Senator Thomas R. Carper, Democrat of Delaware.

At the offices of the Selective Service System, which in 1980 resumed registering men at age 18 in the event the draft was ever resurrected, inquiries arrive daily along with a barrage of requests from news organizations for interviews about the idea of restoring mandatory military service.

"People think it is some big government conspiracy," said Harald Stavenas, a spokesman for the House Armed Services Committee, which gets its share of draft questions as well.

But top lawmakers, joined by Pentagon leaders and administration officials, say that there are definitely no plans to resume the draft and that the military is much better off relying on a substantially motivated volunteer force rather than on conscripts.

"The idea of bringing back the draft, I think the chances are slim and none — and slim left town," one member of the House committee, Representative Ken Calvert, Republican of California, said this week after returning from Iraq. "People can relax about that issue."

The senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin of Michigan, agreed.

"I don't think we're going to need to reinstitute the draft," Mr. Levin said. "The combination of recruiting and retention is doing fairly well."

The roots of the anxiety about the draft can be traced to several developments, among them recent steps taken by the Defense Department to bolster forces stretched by service in Iraq and Afghanistan. Earlier this year the Pentagon issued an order requiring some soldiers to remain in uniform beyond their expected dates for leaving the service. This week the military announced that it would recall to the barracks 5,600 former active-duty soldiers with certain skills who have time remaining as reservists. And Congress is moving to expand the size of the Army and the Marines.

Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, says unease about the prospect of a draft surfaces frequently in his travels around the country. He says unwillingness to accept official reassurances is attributable to public cynicism about the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq.

"I think it is skepticism that we have been misled so many times about this war: weapons of mass destruction, ties to Al Qaeda, a cakewalk," said Mr. Korb, now at the liberal Center for American Progress. "People are clearly worried and figure, `They are just waiting until the election is over to spring the bad news on us.' "

He and others said this could appear to those people to be nothing less than logical progression, after the military's resorting to an extension of tours of duty and the recall of former active-duty soldiers.

"I think what is behind the current public discussion is the sense the Defense Department is using coercion to maintain the service of those who might otherwise get out," said James Burk, a sociology professor at Texas A&M University who studies the intersection of military and public policy issues. "That kind of coercion has a resonance of what the draft is all about."

[blackfox]

(Page 2 of 2)

Neither Mr. Korb nor Professor Burk believes that compulsory service will be reinstituted without mobilization of a scale far beyond anything now needed. But neither do they believe that the buzz will subside.

"It will simmer on the back burner and in the chat rooms," Professor Burk said.

The issue has also been addressed on opinion pages of newspapers around the country. A column in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer called a draft a "poison pill" too unrealistic for the president to consider. Another, in The Chicago Tribune, said that with a military whose members are all volunteers, "we lose our sense of shared sacrifice as a nation."

Advertisement

Indeed, many editorials and op-ed articles focus on the idea that a draft would distribute the burden of war across racial and economic divides. In The Washington Post this week, Noel Koch, who as a Nixon speechwriter wrote a legislative message on the draft's end, said nonetheless that the draft had "shattered class distinctions" in the military, mixing high school dropouts with college graduates, rich with poor.

Seeking to blunt public speculation, the Web site of the Selective Service System carries a long notice saying in part that "both the president and secretary of defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the war on terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq."

"Additionally," the notice says, "the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate the draft."

"The bottom line," said Dan Amon, a spokesman for the Selective Service System, "is it would take an act of Congress because we could not turn it on ourselves. And there is no mood or sentiment in Congress whatsoever for the draft."

Polls show there is little public sentiment for it either, no small consideration in the Congressional thinking. In a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 70 percent of those surveyed were against reinstating the draft, and the opposition was shared almost equally among Democrats, Republicans and independents.

The speculation was initially spurred last year when the Selective Service System began trying to fill vacancies on local draft boards. That was accompanied by reports that the agency had received an extra $28 million in its budget.

But Mr. Amon said the draft board recruitment effort had been undertaken because of the expiration of the 20-year terms of members appointed after President Jimmy Carter re-established registration in 1980. And the $28 million was the agency's regular budget, cut to $26 million by Congress, he said.

E-mail messages circulating about a draft also point to legislation pending in both houses of Congress that would require either military or some other national service. But those measures, written by Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York and Senator Ernest F. Hollings of South Carolina, both Democrats, are much more a political statement than potential law, since they have no Republican support and no chance of passage this year.

Mr. Rangel acknowledges that his initial goal in introducing his measure was to stir opposition to the war in Iraq, his point being that privileged Americans — including politicians — would be far less eager to commit troops if their own sons and daughters had to fight alongside those who join the military to get ahead.

He said the inequality in the burden of warfare was being borne out by the "cruel" Pentagon decision to call back former active-duty soldiers. And he said Americans were right to remain vigilant about the possibility of a draft, given the Iraq conflict.

"If we are really saying we are going to stay there for as long as it takes and we don't have international people sharing the sacrifice," Mr. Rangel said, "sooner or later Americans have to say, `They are now talking about us.' "

Many of his colleagues reject that view, saying there are plenty of Americans willing to join the military on their own.

"You have drafts when you can't get the requisite numbers," said the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California. "There is not now indications that you can't get the requisite numbers. But we watch those numbers every month."

I didn't feel the need to provide the link, as I posted the article in it's entirety...

Some interesting nuggets o' info...