The Need For More US Troops is a Taboo Topic

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by onedomino, Sep 29, 2004.

  1. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    Would you support a draft if it is necessary to meet US Army manpower needs?

    Need for More Troops a Taboo Topic
    BY DAVID WOOD
    NEWHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
    September 29, 2004

    http://www.freep.com/news/nw/pols29e_20040929.htm

    WASHINGTON -- Nearly everyone -- generals, Pentagon strategists, politicians and soldiers -- agrees the United States needs more troops, the key to waging war against Muslim insurgents in Iraq and around the world.
    But on the campaign trail, President George W. Bush and his Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry, hardly address the need to put more American youths in uniform.
    Although both support a slightly larger military, neither Bush nor Kerry has mentioned the added cost or how he would press tens of thousands more young Americans into service.
    Under Bush, the Army is quietly working to add 30,000 soldiers to its active-duty force of half a million. Kerry has proposed adding 40,000 troops. That's less than half what's needed, most experts agree: 100,000 new soldiers. And they are needed quickly. The cost could top $10 billion a year.
    "The U.S. military has been heroic and resilient -- but strategically, they are woefully inadequate for the threat we are facing," said Eliot Cohen, director of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.
    A study by the Defense Science Board, a Pentagon advisory group, has concluded that even with another 30,000 troops, the current force cannot meet "our current and projected global stabilization commitments."
    Within the Army, there is deep concern that the manpower demands of Iraq and Afghanistan have left the United States with no strategic reserve of ground forces, short of a total mobilization and deployment of all active-duty, reserve and National Guard troops. At present, about 21 percent of the Army reserves and National Guard are mobilized, according to a Sept. 22 Pentagon report.
    And the Bush administration's strategy of aggressively promoting global democracy to prevent terrorists from building strongholds in failed nations will require significant new ground forces, said Thomas Donnelly, analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank.
    "In the simplest terms, this requires the expansion of the active-duty component of the U.S. Army," Donnelly said.
    Then why don't Bush and Kerry discuss it openly?
    "Part of it is muddled thinking," Donnelly said in an interview, "and a reluctance to say that this is a big war and we will be in this for a long time."
    Inevitably, some political experts say, mere mention of a larger army reminds voters of the draft -- a hugely unpopular subject for military-age youths and parents, even if the military has discounted the need to conscript young Americans. In May, pollster Peter Hart concluded that 73 percent of today's college students oppose a draft.
    "You can't talk about sacrifice in an election year," said Peter Feaver, a political scientist at Duke University who has written about the public's attitudes toward war. "I don't think our electoral system is responsible enough" to make judgments on such technical issues as the number of combat troops needed and how to get them.
    That leaves military officials and strategists struggling for solutions.
    The top U.S. commander for Iraq, Army Gen. John Abizaid, acknowledged last week that more troops are needed there than the 138,000 U.S. soldiers and Marines now deployed. But he said he hopes the additional manpower could come from allies and from the Iraqi security forces in training.
    But efforts to train and equip new Iraqi security forces are lagging far behind schedule, U.S. military officers have said.
     
  2. deaddude
    Offline

    deaddude Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,403
    Thanks Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +77
    no.
     
  3. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    No. It's bad for troop morale, will turn the country against what needs to be done, and isn't desired by the military at large.

    I say we round up as many illegals as we can, males 18 to 25, and let them 'earn' their citizenship. Or they can be deported. I think that's fair.
     
  4. nycflasher
    Offline

    nycflasher Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    Messages:
    3,078
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    CT
    Ratings:
    +14
    No.
     
  5. deaddude
    Offline

    deaddude Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,403
    Thanks Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +77
    And if they "earn" it as you say, then would you give citizenship to the surviors of the war? Would they also recieve a pension (as many illegals are sending money to families back home)?
     
  6. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,529
    Thanks Received:
    8,159
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,148
    If thats whats needed i dont think id wait for the draft, id just enlist before hand like many did in WW2. I have no problem serving my country. Wish some other people i know felt the same way.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. onedomino
    Offline

    onedomino SCE to AUX

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Thanks Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Ratings:
    +476
    Well, we won't count on deaddude and nycflasher for any help.
     
  8. dmp
    Offline

    dmp Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    13,088
    Thanks Received:
    741
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Ratings:
    +741
    The 'funny' thing is - the 'bring back the draft' bill(s) in congress? They are initiated and purposed by democrats - there is not ONE republican's name on the legislation; every single democrat on the bill(s) is a Kerry Supporter.
     
  9. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    Even the dead would receive posthumous citizenship, and their children taken care of. But yes, all returning veterans would receive all the rights and privileges associated with full citizenship and full veteran status.
     
  10. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    i agree to an extent. in meeting and getting to know so many people in the navy and marines who were born overseas and came to america, i see a dedication and a drive just as great, if not greater than many native born sons/daughters who are in uniform. so i think if the military could make an offer to people overseas to help us fight terrorism in the US army (with the reward of full citizenship and benefits) for 3-5 years, i think the response would be overwhelming. and we'd get 100,000-200,000 damn good new americans out of it.
     

Share This Page