Kerry does not believe **at this time** that there is a need for a draft

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&ncid=696&e=8&u=/afp/20040603/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_kerry_attacks

Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry (news - web sites) will propose increasing the US army's ranks by 40,000 troops to confront new threats, his campaign said.

snip

Former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff John Shalikashvili, another Kerry security team member, said "how quickly we can do this clearly will depend on the number of volunteers. You can and you should increase special ops in light of the missions before us."

But Shalikshvili underscored "I do not believe and Senator Kerry does not believe at this time that there is a need for a draft."

---

Gee, how about 1 year from now. Maybe there will be a need then, huh?

See, all you folks who think there is no way Kerry would institute the draft are in denial.

If and when Kerry does institute a draft, though, I doubt it will be straight-ahead conscription. It'll be a national service plan with civil/military components and options.

to endanger our soldiers, I will do everything in my power to insure my kid does not go, and that includes a national service plan.

After how this government has wasted those young lives in Iraq, I wouldn't trust them with anything. Don't forget the bastards changed the rules on those that were supposed to go home, now they are stuck.

I remember Viet Nam, they will lie unconditionally.

you already know what that prick has done...

Just accept that a Kerry Presidency has a pretty good likelihood of including a draft.

The reason why there would be a Bush draft is because his gang has other wars planned for Syria, Iran and North Korea. Also, other countries are less and less committed to helping him clean up the mess in Iraq.

As president Kerry will not partake in neo-con lab experiments around the world, he will get more cooperation from other nations in Iraq and he will likely ask the Iraqi government to ask us to leave Of course that can't be said right now in the middle of a campaign. In campaigns, sometimes you just have to say certain things to appease the corporate media and prevent the wishy washy swing voters in Macomb County from going bannanas.

I'm sure there would be no draft under a President Nader, but since he has a zero chance of being elected a vote for Kerry is the best insurance against a draft.

Staying in Iraq screams "draft" to me.

Too many of our soldiers want out because Iraq/Afghanistan is a hellhole. Bush has had to issue numerous stop orders. Our guardsmen and women signed up for weekend duty, not a year away in Iraq or Afghanistan. A lot of them want out too. WE ARE UNDERMANNED AND STRETCHED THIN ALREADY.

That is why some people are talking and are worried that our current obligations will break the army.

Unless we lessen these obligations it is likely that we will need to force people into service. I just don't see relief under Kerry. Rather, it seems to me he is determined to "win" this war (or so he says).

Probably by a disgruntled supporter of an unelectable primary candidate. Kerry is our nominee and posting fear mongering items hinting at a draft. that there is no evidence to support, will not change that fact. Nor will it alter the fact that we will win in November. Get over it and do someting constructive,like help us win!

and they want us to lose.

NT

It's easy to attribute ideas to people they've never actually expressed, such as "We'll have a draft" or "Dissent = treason."

How about just sticking to facts?

i said nothing about disagreeing being treason. i know for a fact based on this poster's history they have an agenda . they bragged at that other site about contributing to anti kerry posts on du. this person also insists that kerry cheats on his wife. and this person had no concerns about a draft when dean was still in the race also also refused to support a pull out of iraq.

I had assumed that you took his critical statement to mean that he wanted to prevent Kerry from winning, which, even with your new information is not necessarily true. Simply being critical of Kerry does not imply wanting Kerry to lose.

The original poster implied that Kerry may institute the draft in a couple of years. That does not mean necessarily that he wants Kerry to lose, he's just pointing out some possiblity. He is being very critical of something Kerry said that he didn't appreciate. That sounds like textbook dissent to me.

What you are doing is the equivalent of George Bush saying, "You're criticizing my foreign policy? You must wish harm on America. How do I know that? You bragged to your friend once about how you were part of an anti-war protest."

I have a lot of complaints about Kerry myself, but I still want him to win. It is just that I don't relish the choice...

and that they would do anything to help achieve Kerry's defeat. Is that explicit enough?

I had assumed that you took his critical statement to mean that he wanted to prevent Kerry from winning, which, even with your new information is not necessarily true. Simply being critical of Kerry does not imply wanting Kerry to lose.

link to this alleged statement?

which we are not allowed to link to.

isnt that unfortunate?

in democratic elections. He has lawyers working on the BBV problem. I'm voting for Kerry because I know he can get elected.

I want to see a democratically elected President in this country. After that we the people will have a voice in government. And we the people do not want a draft or an unjust war.

Kerry proposes increasing the size of the standing Army by 40K. All this means is that the Army would be authorized to increase it size by statute, allowing the recruiters to recruit more people.

This doesn't mean a draft by any means. It strikes me more as an off-the-cuff remark by Shalikshvili rather than a policy declaration. I do not believe that they would any trouble finding enough volunteers for this, particularly if we pulled in our horns and stopped abusing the good services of those volunteers by sticking them in danger and leaving them.

While I can hardly blame you for being paranoid about Bush's intentions, I do not think that it translates to Kerry. Remember, the point of the increase is to provide relief for the troops deployed while Bush refuses to increase the size of the Army allowed by law.

a COMPLETE refusal to do this from these guys. President Kerry is going to be SO much better on a lot of issue, but on foreign policy I'm very disappointed to see that it seems like just a rejiggered version of the same old same old. Seems as though he doesn't remember what he learned over the last three decades or so.

and the choice of words is not significant.

Assuming Kerry can get some other NATO and UN troops in Iraq, there is no need for a draft and the present attrition should stop. Better pay, equipment, and conditions for active servicepeople would help, too. I would hope Kerry would be a bit more attentive to veterans' services, along with the treatment of active personnel.

However, you never know about North Korea lobbing nukes, China invading Taiwan, or other catastrophes that would make the draft look like a good thing to lots of people.

You keeps your options open.

Mr. "Help is the the way!", lying ass bush has stuck it to them but good. When you stop and think about how they went into this war, KNOWING that we didn't have enough military personnel to do it properly, it just boggles the mind. Add to that the fact that bush is a recruiting boon for Bin Laden, and his axis of evil declaration is making other nations wary of us, I think that if things get much worse, a draft could be unavoidable. Just pray that bush doesn't provoke too many more people before we can kick him out of the WH.

"When you stop and think about how they went into this war, KNOWING that we didn't have enough military personnel to do it properly, it just boggles the mind."

If we don't have enough personnel to do it properly under Bush, how will Kerry's election magically change things?

Here are fromthewilderness.com quotes from Janes in August before things went to pot:

The official view from the Pentagon is that all is going well in Iraq and that the US forces are more than ready to continue the global war against terrorism. And yet, as the army commanders and planners in the Pentagon know only too well, this is a mere diplomatic smokescreen. The reality is that US forces are now severely overstretched and the number of their military commitments worldwide is increasing by the day.

The USA remains the biggest military power in the world, but it is beginning to experience the classic symptoms of imperial fatigue… Twenty-one of the US Army's 33 regular combat brigades are already on active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea and the Balkans, amounting to roughly 250,000 fighting men and women. And this does not include a substantial number of US troops regularly stationed in Germany, Britain, Italy and Japan, or smaller contingents now scattered around the world. A traditional calculation assumes that for every soldier deployed on an active mission, two more are required to be kept in reserve, either in order to rotate those in action or to prepare for that rotation. Under this assumption, the USA has already reached its limit today… the cost of occupying and rebuilding Iraq now runs at roughly US$4bn a month and is rising. More importantly for US military planners, it also costs, on average, the life of one US soldier a day. Furthermore, Washington has already decided that it will make no further cuts in its presence in Europe and cannot extricate itself from Afghanistan. Given the North Korean situation, no cuts in US troops can be expected in Asia either, notwithstanding the planned redeployment of US forces inside South Korea.

The article asks this question:

The dilemma that will face any administration after the 2004 election will be whether to stay on in Iraq, first, and if that dilemma is resolved with a decision in the affirmative, then the next dilemma is the draft. Can any U.S. administration conduct long-term counter-insurgency with the political baggage of conscription? And can they do it physically without conscription?

He ends by concluding:

The best guarantee against the draft is to stop the occupation of Iraq.

Here is the article which mainly targets Bush, but I don't see how things are different if Kerry gets in.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/022704_draft_goff.html

This addresses our stretched military NOW, not how stretched we would be under Bush's subsequent wars like Syria and Iran, but how overextended we are due to Afghanistan and Iraq, which Kerry will be continuing if elected.

Kerry has said repeatedly NO DRAFT to deal with Iraq.

But what if North Korea attacks? What if China launches an invasion of the US?

Gee to categorically say there will not be a draft during Kerry's Presidency makes just perfect sense doesnt it? You know just in case there happened to be a real war that cropped up and there was an actual need? There are times when a draft is required and proper. That draft should be fairly conducted with equal opportunity to serve for all citizens, but there may be a need for it.

it is Iraq which is overextending us and which will lead to a need for a draft.

I shake my head at the blindness that exists when people think that it is only ANOTHER engagement that will lead to a draft.

It's like the realities of occupying a country as large and populous and pissed off as Iraq do not compute.

NO president can guarantee there's never going to be a draft. Chances are MUCH smaller under Kerry, or any other Democrat, than the Chimp. Kerry's plan involves getting stability and security in Iraq with the help of other countries, by convincing them it's in their own interest to ensure it doesn't become a terrorist haven or failed state, which is definitely the case.

awfully similar because Iraq = draft.

I just do not see Iraqis being content to be occupied by ANYONE. They have a centuries long history of expelling occupiers and the sordid reputation we have made for ourselves does not help any.

Here are some numbers from the article for a reality check:

Iraq covers 167,924 square miles.
Its population is around 29 million, and the majority indicates that it opposes the occupation.
That's an average of 173 people per square mile.
That's an average of 0.7 US military personnel per square mile, if you accept that 120,000 can be maintained there under the current system.

You think it is so easy to stabilize Iraq? I don't see it. Never did and that is why I opposed the war in the 1st place. I thought it was an impossible task from the start, kind of a suicide mission really.

Of course it's not "easy," and of course most of us opposed the war in the first place. It was a huge blunder and now it's a huge mess.

Let's not make the mistake of oversimplifying "Iraqis" as if they were one homogenous country, or as if all citizens have a voice. Let's also not make the mistake of assuming that ANYbody wants the US to remain there as "occupiers" -- even the Chimp is looking for an exit.

As has been hashed and rehashed here many times over, it's not as simple as just "stay or go." If we just "go," what do you think would happen?

"Iraq = draft" is very simplistic. There are many different ways we can be involved in rebuilding what we destroyed; it's not just black/white, stay/go, in/out.

Sounds as wildly optimistic as Rumsfeld's plan to me. I'm sorry I can't buy it. If I could, maybe I would be sleeping right now instead of worrying about a draft.

To the extent he can outline a plan at this point, without knowing what the situation will be in January 2005 and without knowing everything the president can, his plan recognizes the risks of failure, the challenges of involving the UN and NATO particularly when it comes to troops, and the difficulties of establishing security on the streets and stability in the government of Iraq.

What's your plan? Just "go?"

some people still can't get over their candidate losing.and they especially can't get over kerry being the one to win it since they thought they had won it and kerry had no chance but kerry comes back and kicks ass and wins the whole thing.and some can't get over it.

and this poster is one who claims kerry cheats on his wife. and this poster didn't seem to have a problem with howard dean who also said he wouldn't pull out of iraq. they weren't concerned of any draft then. and of course this poster bragged about how they are contributing to anti kerry posts here on that other board where supporters of a certain loser candidate go.

It always was. To me it is immoral and I feel an unending disgust for those who got us into it because it is so hard to get out of it with honor. I blame Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Judith Miller, the NYT, Chalabi, and pink tutu Dems who were too scared to caution this country against this idiocy.

I felt comfort in knowing that Dean opposed it and knew it was wrong. Likewise, I am uncomfortable at Kerry's lack of voice at the wrongness and illegitimacy of it all.

I knew that if it all went to hell, my preferred candidate would not perpetuate a suicide mission. He has more of an affinity for potential draftees because he has a son at perfect draft age. If we have a draft, his son, and his kid's friends are at risk. He would never have sent his son to die for a lie.

Unquestioning support will make Kerry think it is ok no matter what he does. I am here to say that it is not ok. I also do not want Dems to deceive kids into thinking that Kerry will not draft them because I honestly think the realities of the numbers mean he will have to if he wants to stay in Iraq.

That is where I am coming from...it is genuine outrage and uneasyness.

But you may disregard my cautions if you like. I am just warning people what I see coming, just like I spoke out against Iraq prior to the vote.

j17's contention that you post anti Kerry material elsewhere and have indicated that you hope Kerry will lose and havw worked toward that end. The post above also indicates that you have posted that Kerry cheats on his wife. None of these are admirable things and do not support the fact that you are merely anti-war. Why do you not answer these allegations? And for whom should we vote, if not for Kerry? Since he is our nominee?

extensive Mandatory public service "Volunteer" programs for all Americans, which will include a broad range of military service options.

It's not a "draft" it's a "public service volunteer" program.

Great sales job by Kerry. Parents will feel so much better about Kerry's "volunteer" program than by that awful word "draft".

Got a link to where he said this was mandatory, or where he said a draft of any kind was inevitable?

the military needs bodies. You catch more flies with honey...

"America is built on simple principles: Everyone should have the same opportunity to get ahead, and everyone has a responsibility to give something back. The men and women who serve in our military take the greatest risks and make the ultimate sacrifices. John Kerry honors their service, and he also believes that Americans who are not in the
military want to serve and ought to have opportunities to do so.
Since September 11, Americans have been searching for ways to contribute to our country. But President Bush has broken promise after promise to rally “armies of compassion,” even causing cuts in AmeriCorps because of bureaucratic failures."

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/johnkerry_service_fact_sheet.pdf

No he doesn't say mandatory...yet. There's time enough for that later, after he's elected.

anywhere.

why even say ANYTHING about it if it's all "volunteer"? Like there is any lack of "volunteer" oppurtunity at the moment. Go down to your local recruiter to find out more.

Why say anything about it if it's volunteer, you ask? Because it's a new way to earn college money through service without going into the military.

(As for unlimited volunteer opportunities, you might go down to your local recruiter and ask what a "billet" is.)

Bottom line: it's NOT "mandatory."

Even volunteers cost money. Thats why the govt has cut back on volunteer programs.

The post is MY prediction of what will happen. If it's wrong, it's wrong. It won't hurt Kerry, who is a very smart man, and smart enough to know that the military is going to need bodies, especially if the nation continues to engage its imperial and strategic ambitions, which Kerry has indicated it will. He's too smart to call for a draft, so these bodies will have to come from somwhere. I guess we could hire more mercenaries, but maybe a nice, warm, and bunny-soft national service program would inspire people to join a service branch. And in the interest of fairness, such a volunteer service program must apply to all. Of course, maybe it won't come to that. Maybe he could initiate a convicts to conscripts program, and kill two birds with one stone. He has to do something.

And about as valid as if I were to 'speculate' that you support declaring martial law in United States.

Personally, after watching politics since the Nixon years, I'm more than a bit cynical about the whole game. IMO, by and large, politicians are liars and cheats, regardless of party. And actually, Kerry is a rather decent sort, as politicians go, but that doesn't mean I trust him.

While my speculation may be wrong, I don't think it's baseless; however, you are free to disregard it according to the dictates of your own experiences, observations, and beliefs. If I'm wrong, then I'll be a cynical, pessimistic fool who is pleasantly surprised. If I'm right, I'll still be a cynical fool, but there will be nothing pleasant about it.

And it's one of the reasons I'm voting for Kerry.

I WANT a draft, as much as I despised and resisted it during Vietnam (#115 in the last lottery), and I think Kerry is one of the verry few Dems who would ever even consider the possibility and have even a ghost of a chance to institute a draft. Hence, I supported Kerry in the primaries.

Two reasons why a draft is good:

1). In a democratic republic, a draft is a BRAKE on foolish and misguided military ventures. Heard of any foolish and misguided military ventures lately? That is because the men and women on the frontlines AND THEIR FAMILIES have an ultimate veto--the next election.

I firmly believe that if Bush had had a conscripted military, he'd never have been politically able to invade Iraq.

2). I deeply fear the development of a military class. Any society with a large military class with an ideology distinct from its society is bad fucking news.

I made it up

but I believe you can come up with a better defintion than that. FWIW, here's Webster's take:

"Main Entry: spec·u·late
Pronunciation: 'spe-ky&-"lAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Latin speculatus, past participle of speculari to spy out, examine, from specula watchtower, from specere to look, look at -- more at SPY
intransitive senses
1 a : to meditate on or ponder a subject : REFLECT b : to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively
2 : to assume a business risk in hope of gain; especially : to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuations

transitive senses
1 : to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence : THEORIZE <speculated that a virus caused the disease>
2 : to be curious or doubtful about : WONDER <speculates whether it will rain all vacation>
synonym see THINK"

I don't really see anything there equivalent to "making it up."

Or Nader, or anyone else for that matter.

Kerry is not in any rush to bring back a draft, but if he's Commander-in-Chief, he must be willing to do so if necessary. It's not any different for anybody.

:shrug:

For me, I'm inclined to accept Kerry's official position that he will not institute a draft, rather than some vague statement, interpreted in a very dubious fashion, seeminly designed to undermine our Democratic presidential candidate. SOME of us actually want Kerry to beat *! Go figure!

:wow:

Who would've guessed a year ago that it'd be THIS bad at this time? He's smart to put things in terms of the here and now, rather than a future promise.

Please note that it relies on a statement that Kerry did not make.

for a spike to be driven through my head.



Now you can take that statement, and interpret it to mean that one year from now, I might consider having a spike driven through my head. But you would be practicing faulty logic.

you really can lay off the hysterics now

If voters don't like a President's performance in office we can always vote for someone else next time.

first of all if the US remains on it's present course, a draft will be a necessity. I think from what I've read John Kerry's alternative plan is rather weak. He is in a back handed manner acknowledging there is a problem and suggesting a weak solution. Believe me, I don't want or desire a draft. I'm just talking about the fact if we remain in this stupied attack mode against the Iraqi people we will need a draft to continue the idiocy. To stress further my feelings. I have 2 sons that stand in line to be drafted and "over my dead body" rings in my head. My point is too continually keep people in the military and refuse to allow them to leave....is essentially the same as a draft which I will credit Kerrry as saying but Kerry has yet to bring up the ultra reason for not needing a draft and that's not being in a war.

it is unfortunate that Republicans will increase spending on the military by trillions without considering that this shall ultimately result in record tax increases, and they will support the invasion and occupation of two hostile countries without even considering where to get the necessary manpower.