Considering how much some caring folks bemoan how out-of-shape America’s youth is, 6 months of indoctrination into the benefits of physical fitness should fit right into their agenda.

An added benefit would be that should a person decide to enlist later, getting that person up to speed on current military practices would be much easier.

But this really is off topic. The DNC isn’t trying to make any suggestions that would actually benefit the nation. The only thing they want to do is win. That’s the scary thing.

I concede it is rare and praiseworthy that he provided supporting cites for his claims.

Others have responded on the merits at length and adequately.

Seeing as how the majority of Democrats, let alone “bonehead” Republicans are against the idea of a draft, how could these few wing-nuts get a bill to Bush’s desk?

Your scenario is nothing short of fantasy.

In other words, while you found a fruit, its still just another apples/oranges situation.

The modern military is not an organization that can take any warm body. Modern soldiers must be highly trained and motivated. The must meet minimum standards of IQ and education that place them firmly in the mid-range of high school graduates. The military cannot train up the least capable like it used to. The gap is to large.

I wouldn’t be surprised that some Republican would favor compulsory service as a sort of citizenship building exercise just like Democrats favor programs like Americore but nobody is seriously proposing a draft to solve potential manpower shortages. It just wouldn’t work on a technical level.

My husband is a retired army officer who is currently doing high-level work for the military on force restructuring for the future. Believe me, there is no plan in any way shape or form for a draft!! There would have to be a nuclear world war and a need for untrained warm bodies to throw at an enemy before the military would want to take on conscripted GIs. In the 70s, the mil spent too much time on social work and character issues regarding the draftee dregs, which was a drag that detracted significantly from mil readiness. Today’s vounteer forces are highly motivated and selected using fairly high standards. The quality of our recruits is a big reason our mil is so top-notch.

That a few Republicans value universal military service as good for our young people and speak up occasionally about “only ifs”, doesn’t mean that Repubs are going to sponsor and pass a bill for a draft that would be anathema to our military. This current blather and Congressional bill proposal about a draft to come is the work of increasingly desperate and unethical Democrats who employ the politics of fear on ill-informed and gullible interest groups. One day it’s the seniors. Now, it’s our youth and college kids. Gotta love those worthy opponents, the Dems—

I don’t know. If Bush doesn’t push for a higher enlistment cap and more recruiting, and the “we need more troops” idea gains more momentum, Bush might find a draft bill on his desk. Since he apparently hasn’t figured out how to veto bills, we might be in for it at that point.

The idea that the draft equalizes sacrifice is pure nonsense. A draft lets older people off the hook, allowing them to sacrifice less in taxes than it would take to induce the draftees to voluntarily serve. (Unless, of course, the “draftees” would have volunteered anyway, in which case the draft is a waste of resources) Under a draft, the young do all the sacrificing and their elders aren’t required to sacrifice as much as they should. With a volunteer military, the soldiers serve and sacrifice, and non-soldier taxpayers of every age group pay them at a rate the soldiers think is acceptable. People getting free money from the government still get off the hook without sacrificing, but that’s a different issue.

A need for more troops does not translate into a need for conscription. That’s what recruiting is for. I’m still aghast that the Administration didn’t step up recruiting two years ago. At any rate, whether we need a few more troops or a lot more troops, recruiting is by far the best way to get them and ensure that they’ll perform well.

A draft is only useful if our goal is to lose. Sometimes we got away with it; generally, that was because most of the “draftees” would have volunteered anyway, and the draft was redundant.

Rodney’s quibbles are a cloud of fog. The core message here is the Democrats are making up an issue where there isn’t one, where the facts don’t even support the story they want to tell. They want to scare people with a threat which doesn’t really exist. And Rodney wants to parse the history to show why, hyper-technically, there really is some basis in fact for these claims.

But his pathology is the same as the rest of the Democrats’. The point he and they don’t get is that this is a STUPID issue. It is not real. No one who doesn’t already hate Bush will think it is real. To the people the Donks need to reach in the next few weeks, this trumped up issue will not be scary. It is a bad strategy that will not work. Worse, there are, in fact, many sound reasons to criticize Bush and they are wasting our time and theirs on this stupid crap.

Fine Rodney, instead of NO facts, there are some wisps of facts supporting the dreadful threat that Bush will reinstate the draft.

OK then. Run with it. See how far you get with it.

Unlike the clearly coordinated effort by the Democrats to CREATE an issue from the very bills they introduced!

There’s no difference between a bill and a resolution. Every bill introduced in the House of Representatives is given the “HR” designation, or “House Resolution.”

You may be confusing “HR” with “CR,” which are “concurrent resolutions,” which are bills that only affect the rules and procedures between the two houses of Congress, and don’t need to be signed by the president.

But both the Rangel bill and the Weldon-Smith bill were given HR numbers, meaning both have the potential to become law.

http://www.house.gov/house/Tying_it_all.shtml

Criminy, there’s millions of them. For starters,look at all those people in the streets of New York last month; they don’t get it.

Notice how thin it is? No bill sponsors. No one in the administration. No one in the military. Weighed against 15 Dems sponsoring a bill, and I think its pretty clear who is really pushing this draft thing.

And why. Not for the good of the country, but for cheap partisan points.

And that supports your point how?

“I think I’m the only member of the Senate Armed Services Committee who would reinstate the draft. There are huge social benefits that come from it. I can assure you I would not be in the U.S. Senate today if I had not gone through the draft. When I look at the problems of some of our kids in America nowadays and then I go visit the troops, I see what a great benefit it is to give people the opportunity to serve their country.”

Sen. James Inhonfe, Republican.