PNAC Calling For Draft?

Discussion in 'America Attacks!' started by Pressed_Rat, Jan 31, 2005.

  1. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Likes Received:

    see also:

    Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces
    January 28, 2005​

    Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and Representative Pelosi:

    The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges.

    So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years.

    There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month, Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported that "overuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan could be leading to a "broken force." Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational commitment." The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership.

    The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality. We understand the dangers of continued federal deficits, and the fiscal difficulty of increasing the number of troops. But the defense of the United States is the first priority of the government. This nation can afford a robust defense posture along with a strong fiscal posture. And we can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed for transformation of the military.

    In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any time during the Cold War. We do not propose returning to a Cold War-size or shape force structure. We do insist that we act responsibly to create the military we need to fight the war on terror and fulfill our other responsibilities around the world.

    The men and women of our military have performed magnificently over the last few years. We are more proud of them than we can say. But many of them would be the first to say that the armed forces are too small. And we would say that surely we should be doing more to honor the contract between America and those who serve her in war. Reserves were meant to be reserves, not regulars. Our regulars and reserves are not only proving themselves as warriors, but as humanitarians and builders of emerging democracies. Our armed forces, active and reserve, are once again proving their value to the nation. We can honor their sacrifices by giving them the manpower and the materiel they need.

    Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the duty to raise and support the military forces of the United States in the hands of the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act. You will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success in carrying out our foreign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also hopeful, world.


    Peter Beinart Jeffrey Bergner Daniel Blumenthal

    Max Boot Eliot Cohen Ivo H. Daalder

    Thomas Donnelly Michele Flournoy Frank F. Gaffney, Jr.

    Reuel Marc Gerecht Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson (USAF, retired)

    Bruce P. Jackson Frederick Kagan Robert Kagan

    Craig Kennedy Paul Kennedy Col. Robert Killebrew (USA, retired)

    William Kristol Will Marshall Clifford May

    Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, retired) Daniel McKivergan

    Joshua Muravchik Steven J. Nider Michael O'Hanlon

    Mackubin Thomas Owens Ralph Peters Danielle Pletka

    Stephen P. Rosen Major Gen. Robert H. Scales (USA, retired)

    Randy Scheunemann Gary Schmitt

    Walter Slocombe James B. Steinberg


    Likes Received:
    All I have to say in reference to the letter is

    fuck you! You draft war mongering asshole fucks!!!!!

  3. Pointbreak

    Pointbreak Banned

    Likes Received:
    Yeah man! Except that an increase in ACTIVE DUTY forces has nothing to do with the draft, in fact they're trying to take the pressure off of reserves too. Why do you think they said that "Reserves were meant to be reserves, not regulars"?

    While its going to be a long wait, I am looking forward to how you explain the fact that there is no draft doesn't mean your conspiracy theories were wrong.
  4. Higherthanhell

    Higherthanhell Banned

    Likes Received:
    Then what the fuck does? you guys crack me up

    Easy..because they where waiting to get retard reelected ..stupid

    Hasen't anybody told you..Bush is a lying fuking war criminal
  5. Pointbreak

    Pointbreak Banned

    Likes Received:
    A draft is a draft. Increasing the size of active duty forces has nothing to do with a draft, it means recruit more soldiers, that's what we always do when we increase the size of active duty forces. They have already been increased since 2001 without a draft. Troop levels are about half of what they were during the cold war (when they were also all volunteer) - so what is the basis for pretending we are stretched to the limit and need a draft?

    I was waiting for the pipeline in Afghanistan, for Kerry to be assassinated, for martial law to be declared, for osama to be captured or a giant terrorist attack to be launched just before the election, now I'm waiting for the invasion of Iran and Syria, for the stockmarket to fall 50%, for the draft, for someone to "blow the cover" on 9/11. I expect I'll be waiting a long time, and if none of these will happen yet if I dare point them out I'll just get the usual insults.
  6. homebudz

    homebudz Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    Likes Received:
    It seems that the recruiting and retention enticements aren't working as well as the powers that be,,,,thought.Our forces can only be so thin,spread about as they are.I have always been against the draft,even back in my day.I just don't see how the military can meet the obligations and commitments that bush keeps throwing at them.Sooner or later lawsuits in regards to questionable retention practices of current active military,including the reserves/national guard etc,will appear as contract violations.From there,who really knows.It may go by another name,but I do see a draft coming down the road.I said this 2 years ago,and I still believe it will happen.I would love to be completely wrong on this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice