Bush adviser: Military draft worth considering

[ConcordCowboy]

Bush adviser: Military draft worth considering


Lute says Bush has made clear he doesn’t think draft is necessary

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20219330/


Aug 10, 2007

WASHINGTON - Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday.

"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."

"And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another," Lute added in his first interview since he was confirmed by the Senate in June.

President Nixon abolished the draft in 1973. Restoring it, Lute said, would be a "major policy shift" and Bush has made it clear that he doesn't think it's necessary.

"The president's position is that the all volunteer military meets the needs of the country and there is no discussion of a draft. General Lute made that point as well," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

In the interview, Lute also said that "Today, the current means of the all-volunteer force is serving us exceptionally well."


Still, he said the repeated deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan affect not only the troops but their families, who can influence whether a service member decides to stay in the military.

"There's both a personal dimension of this, where this kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living room conversations within these families," he said. "And ultimately, the health of the all-volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions."

Draft history
The military conducted a draft during the Civil War and both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. The Selective Service System, re-established in 1980, maintains a registry of 18-year-old men.

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has called for reinstating the draft as a way to end the Iraq war.

Bush picked Lute in mid-May as a deputy national security adviser with responsibility for ensuring efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are coordinated with policymakers in Washington. Lute, an active-duty general, was chosen after several retired generals turned down the job.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Crown Royal]

If the US plans on keeping troops deployed globally as we have done for the past 60 years (Korea, Japan, Europe, Guatanamo, Persian Gulf/Iraq, etc.), then yes, of course it is worth considering. I don't question that a military advisor would recognize that, in what they term 'national security,' a draft should be considered. If the machine continues to run the way it does, then you won't have enough volunteers left.

The other option, however, and the one that I feel has more benefit, is to a) lose the paranoia and the idea that national security is attained by deploying more and more forces worldwide and b) bring some troops home - if not from Iraq, from other places. We have deployed ourselves thin since WW2.

[zrinkill]

IMNHO There is no way this happens. Just fear tactics for the upcoming election.

[Ben_n_austin]

The other option, however, and the one that I feel has more benefit, is to a) lose the paranoia and the idea that national security is attained by deploying more and more forces worldwide and b) bring some troops home - if not from Iraq, from other places. We have deployed ourselves thin since WW2.

all of the above :)

[iceberg]

bush is clear - no draft.

"bush advisor" - consider it.

notice we still get to rag on bush for this.

gets old.

[Ben_n_austin]

bush is clear - no draft.

"bush advisor" - consider it.

notice we still get to rag on bush for this.

gets old.


The draft bears consideration; for the reasons stated above: we're deployed all over the world, we don't have any volunteers left, and when we're a war machine, under Bush's guidance. It just seems like it might be relevant; given that there is an issue of personnel in our military.

If no draft, then certainly we need to make some tactical moves to make more troops available.

I'm not advocating the draft, in the least. I'm just saying that at the rate we're going, it's not a nonsense issue; and it does have some to do with Bush.

[iceberg]

The draft bears consideration; for the reasons stated above: we're deployed all over the world, we don't have any volunteers left, and when we're a war machine, under Bush's guidance. It just seems like it might be relevant; given that there is an issue of personnel in our military.

If no draft, then certainly we need to make some tactical moves to make more troops available.

I'm not advocating the draft, in the least. I'm just saying that at the rate we're going, it's not a nonsense issue; and it does have some to do with Bush.

not quite my point but i did drift some - my bad.

my point was we don't name the advisor, we say "bush advisor" so people can think bush is considering it. however, the article is clear "bush says NO" so i'm not sure what my overall problem is.

as for the draft, i'd be against it for now. the "Bush war machine" isn't long for the world and if he's gonna do anything he'd better get it done quick with what, a year in effective office? whether or not we really need a draft will depend on what the next admin wishes to do - and "we the people" say pull out of iraq so i'm sure that's to be considered and scaled back just to satisfy "we the people".

if we do a draft *now* i could see bush going into iran but why? he's got no real reason to, so i'd rather see us pull out, come home, and take care of business here at home for a change.

[ConcordCowboy]

my point was we don't name the advisor, we say "bush advisor" so people can think bush is considering it. however, the article is clear "bush says NO" so i'm not sure what my overall problem is.



It names him.

"President Bush's new war adviser said Friday."


"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."

[iceberg]

It names him.

"President Bush's new war adviser said Friday."


"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."

i meant in the quote - where most people quit reading.

like me. : )

[ConcordCowboy]

i meant in the quote - where most people quit reading.

like me. : )

Not me...As soon as I see...Draft worth considering and then it came from a Bush advisor...I'm just a little bit curious as to who would say it...as I would think most people would be.

Except you.:D

[CowboyJeff]

And in other news.....The RNC's "Impeachment Advisor" is working overtime....

[Mavs Man]

They're considering bringing back the draft like I'm considering seeing Daddy Day Camp.

Either way, it's not happening.

[iceberg]

Not me...As soon as I see...Draft worth considering and then it came from a Bush advisor...I'm just a little bit curious as to who would say it...as I would think most people would be.

Except you.:D

i probably should have - just too much going on and these days i've been known to fall asleep at the keyboard.

[ZeroClub]

They're considering bringing back the draft like I'm considering seeing Daddy Day Camp.

Either way, it's not happening.
Yeah, I agree. It isn't happening.

I think the general public feels a greater stake in (and concern about) military action when the military contains a significant number of randomly selected (i.e. drafted) soldiers. The public cares about volunteers, of course, but when the government forces non-volunteers to risk their lives, it results in more scrutiny, dissent and an overall more emotionally volatile situation. Basically, the draft raises the stakes for politicians as they consider military action. A less adventurous attitude on the part of politicians about military action might not be such a bad thing.

[ConcordCowboy]

And in other news.....The RNC's "Impeachment Advisor" is working overtime....

Well when Bush's personally picked War Adviser Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute says we should consider a Draft...Maybe there's something to it.

After all Bush himself said we should listen to the military advisers/commanders.

Unless of course they don't agree with him.

[Sasquatch]

After all Bush himself said we should listen to the military advisers/commanders.



He also said that anyone in the White House were responsible for leaks would be punished.

This man has no credibility. Too bad, I was seriously hoping that he would bring some respectability back to the office after the Clinton years, even though I don't subscribe to his ideology.

Oh well, it won't be the last time that an elected official lies and disappoints.

[ConcordCowboy]

He also said that if anyone in the White House were responsible for leaks would be punished.

This man has no credibility.

Really?;)

[Mavs Man]

Yeah, I agree. It isn't happening.

I think the general public feels a greater stake in (and concern about) military action when the military contains a significant number of randomly selected (i.e. drafted) soldiers. The public cares about volunteers, of course, but when the government forces non-volunteers to risk their lives, it results in more scrutiny, dissent and an overall more emotionally volatile situation. Basically, the draft raises the stakes for politicians as they consider military action. A less adventurous attitude on the part of politicians about military action might not be such a bad thing.

I agree with that. Re-instituting the draft would definitely result in a less hawkish, more calculating foreign policy (at least those including military options).

[zrinkill]

There will never be another draft in this country with the current form of government.

This is only being talked about because there is an election next year.


"don't vote for the scary Republicans because they will send your sons to die in a war"

Just like for years its been

"don't vote for the scary Democrats or they will let terrorist kill your kids"

:rolleyes: same old tired political bullcrap.

[Crown Royal]

There will never be another draft in this country with the current form of government.

This is only being talked about because there is an election next year.


"don't vote for the scary Republicans because they will send your sons to die in a war"

Just like for years its been

"don't vote for the scary Democrats or they will let terrorist kill your kids"

:rolleyes: same old tired political bullcrap.


Luckily, I am immune. I have no kids.:D

[zrinkill]

Luckily, I am immune. I have no kids.:D

I am quickly becoming immune because I don't listen to any of them anymore.

[jterrell]

There will never be another draft in this country with the current form of government.

This is only being talked about because there is an election next year.


"don't vote for the scary Republicans because they will send your sons to die in a war"

Just like for years its been

"don't vote for the scary Democrats or they will let terrorist kill your kids"

:rolleyes: same old tired political bullcrap.

Hey don't knock it, it works.
Repubs have 8 years of rule under a barely intelligible President based on "don't vote for the scary Democrats or they will let terrorist kill your kids" with a huge side helping of "Democrats will turn your kids into gays".

Its the first rule of Fight Club.....

[zrinkill]

Hey don't knock it, it works.
Repubs have 8 years of rule under a barely intelligible President based on "don't vote for the scary Democrats or they will let terrorist kill your kids" with a huge side helping of "Democrats will turn your kids into gays".

Its the first rule of Fight Club.....

And the Dems had 8 before that on "Repubs will take away your social" and "Repubs dont care about poor people"

same old cycle

[iceberg]

Hey don't knock it, it works.
Repubs have 8 years of rule under a barely intelligible President based on "don't vote for the scary Democrats or they will let terrorist kill your kids" with a huge side helping of "Democrats will turn your kids into gays".

Its the first rule of Fight Club.....

except when bush won the 1st time - terrorism wasn't "dominate" - that was his 2nd term in office when that stuff came around. and for all his faults and bad/terrible/sucky/whatever bush may be - the democrats can't put up someone who could beat him. not sure that's an endorsement of the party if they can't beat someone who's apparantely so "inept".

[BrAinPaiNt]

except when bush won the 1st time - terrorism wasn't "dominate" - that was his 2nd term in office when that stuff came around. and for all his faults and bad/terrible/sucky/whatever bush may be - the democrats can't put up someone who could beat him. not sure that's an endorsement of the party if they can't beat someone who's apparantely so "inept".

Just an opinion I have stated before but I still believe it.

Bush did not as much win the election last time around, as the Dems lost it.

They really were taken behind the shed by the republican election crew in that last presidential election.

There were times when the Kerry group, or Kerry himself would say things that were head scratchers and other times where they said nothing when they should have. It was mind boggling that so much money was put into that race, so ripe a time to take out bush and they still managed to bungle it.

That is not a slam on bush, it is a slam on how badly the dems ran that last election.

[iceberg]

Just an opinion I have stated before but I still believe it.

Bush did not as much win the election last time around, as the Dems lost it.

They really were taken behind the shed by the republican election crew in that last presidential election.

There were times when the Kerry group, or Kerry himself would say things that were head scratchers and other times where they said nothing when they should have. It was mind boggling that so much money was put into that race, so ripe a time to take out bush and they still managed to bungle it.

That is not a slam on bush, it is a slam on how badly the dems ran that last election.

hey - i can agree with this, bp. they thought their jokes, ploys and bush'isms slams would be enough when if they'd worried about their own candidates and how they came across, they may have had a much better shot at it.

but that's kinda my point too - if you can't beat bush, who is apparantely so inept, then you need to look at yourself, not bush, to make things better. or it could be that maybe bush isn't as inept as some make him out to be.

but i do agree the dems lost more than the repubs won. but it's still sad for the dems.

[ConcordCowboy]

hey - i can agree with this, bp. they thought their jokes, ploys and bush'isms slams would be enough when if they'd worried about their own candidates and how they came across, they may have had a much better shot at it.

but that's kinda my point too - if you can't beat bush, who is apparantely so inept, then you need to look at yourself, not bush, to make things better. or it could be that maybe bush isn't as inept as some make him out to be.

but i do agree the dems lost more than the repubs won. but it's still sad for the dems.


Bush is inept...but nobody said Rove was.

The way he handled Kerry was Great....Flip...Flop:flipflop:

Every time I hear flip flop now I want to :ralph:

And then you have to give Kerry credit...for saying stupid things and giving Rove material on a platter.

And then the worst of it all...Kerry getting swift boated and not saying a damn thing...just sitting there like it wasn't going to make a difference.:rolleyes:

What a Dumb he was for that.

[sacase]

Personally I think it is a good idea, there should be mandatory national service for 2 years after highschool. Not saying it should be the military service, but you should serve your country for two years in some capacity. I think it should be a requirement to vote, obtain financial aid, etc.

[Crown Royal]

Personally I think it is a good idea, there should be mandatory national service for 2 years after highschool. Not saying it should be the military service, but you should serve your country for two years in some capacity. I think it should be a requirement to vote, obtain financial aid, etc.

What a very Heinleinian (read - slightly fascist) thing to say.

Not that I don't understand the logic behind it - should you wish to reap the benefits of your government, why not serve something, too. Frankly, it doesn't hold up. 1) I was born into this government, not something I asked for. 2) I'd very quickly forego many of the 'services' offered, however, since they tend to tax me without my consent, I feel fine in taking what I can get from it.