Powered by TypePad

« Debate Prep From Fareed Zakaria | Main | Pain Without Relief »

September 30, 2004

Comments

abb1

...don't dredge up news clippings of Bush or Rumsfeld saying "no way"...

But what would be the point of dredging - why would anyone believe anything politicians are saying on this subject in the middle of the election campaign? They also don't say: "we'll need to raise taxes" while everyone knows this is what they'll have to do if they win. When you know draft's coming - you know draft's coming.

George

When you know draft's coming - you know draft's coming.

More unassailable logic from abb1.

Mitch H.

Apparently the head of the DNC, an ex-senator, and a failed presidential candidate are not politicians from the viewpoint of your average blogroach.

BTW, the Daily Pennsylvanian seems to be the paper for the University of Pennsylvania, aka Penn. Penn State's paper is called the Collegian. Damn. The online version of the Collegian is even uglier than the print version was when I was a student.

Hrm. I'm both surprised and proud of the Collegian. Their one article on the draft proposals was back in 2003 when Rangel was ranting about it, and it blamed Rangel for the furor. I don't remember the Collegian as having been a particularly responsible or sane publication...

TM

Well, thanks very much for the correction and the update from Penn State.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Don't forget Gilda Radner checking on the U of Miami:

http://flyunderthebridge.blogspot.com/2004/09/emily-litellas-favorite-interviewer.html

John

My son at Penn says it's a non-issue. Kids are aware that it's being used as a partisan tactic.

Kane

I've been trying to retrace my steps of the last few days (after dumping my history files)because I know I saw a deleted page from the Kerry website detailing his highschool/college two-year military service plan- red meat from the "draft is coming" candidate (how I loathe Kerry's lies). Can anyone dig up an archive on this, because I know it's out there.

Thanks!

abb1

LA Times:


U.S. Military Is Stretched Too Thin, Defense Board Warns

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military lacks sufficient personnel to meet the nation's current war and peacekeeping demands throughout the world in coming years, despite steps being taken by the Army to stretch its ranks and increase the number of soldiers available for combat, according to a Pentagon advisory board.

The report by the Defense Science Board, a panel of outside advisors to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argues that "inadequate total numbers" of troops mean the United States can "not sustain our current and projected global stabilization commitments." Army initiatives to create more combat brigades out of its 10 active divisions are "important, but partial, steps toward enhanced stabilization operations," the panel said.
[...]
Officials in the Army remain concerned that the lengthy deployments will eventually take a toll on the all-volunteer force. On Wednesday, Defense officials said the Army had met most of its recruiting goals for 2004, yet might have more difficulty meeting them next year. The Army National Guard expects to fall roughly 5,000 soldiers short of its 2004 recruiting goal of 56,000.


Cecil Turner
"On Wednesday, Defense officials said the Army had met most of its recruiting goals for 2004 . . ."

Correct. The last detailed figures indicated:


  • "The retention for the active components is over 100 percent of target, and reserve component retention is about 99 percent."
  • "In the National Guard, retention is almost 101 percent."
  • "Army Reserve recruiting also is going well, and the component expects 102 percent of its goal . . ."
  • "National Guard officials said that they will be short about 5,000 prior-service personnel . . ."
If the need is to expand the size of the force, recruiting more is the obvious answer (which is one of Kerry's proposals, IIRC). But it should be obvious that recruiting (or a draft) won't address the shortage of "prior-service personnel," especially since it's largely caused by stop-loss. In fact, a draft is a total non-sequitur, which is probably why nobody responsible is even suggesting it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame