's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Are we going to have to bring back the Draft ?(26 posts)

Are we going to have to bring back the Draft ?MR_GRUMPY
Oct 3, 2003 7:58 AM
If this thing in Iraq lasts another 6 months to a year, will we be able to rotate troops back, or not ? Anybody out there with any answers ???
Yeah right,TJeanloz
Oct 3, 2003 8:02 AM
It would never happen. At the very least not until the generation currently in power leaves.

I also haven't seen any statistics that indicate that the military is short of help. I don't see staffing the armed forces as a legitimate problem at this point, and anybody who says we need to bring back the draft is just inciting bad memories of Vietnam.
So, we have enough manpower to rotate the troops back ?MR_GRUMPY
Oct 3, 2003 8:25 AM
I've read a few things that said that we didn't...But then again, maybe it was just unpatriotic talk.
I'm not qualified to answer that,TJeanloz
Oct 3, 2003 9:08 AM
I don't even know what "rotate back" means. But I haven't heard any desperate calls for help from anybody except Charlie Rangle. I have seen studies that indicate there is not a staffing shortage.
The issue as I understand it is...............Len J
Oct 3, 2003 9:58 AM
that a large percentage of the soldiers in Iraq are reservists. Normally, reserveists are called up for rotations of no longer than 6 months. Currently, they are being told that the minimim call up is 1 year and may be as long as 18 months. This is because the Army is stretched thin due to actions in Afranistan, Iraq as well as continued peacekeeping in several other locations and does not have enough reserve units to rotate the existing troops home on shorter intervals. Th Pentagon is apparently concerned about this due to the effect it is having on troop morale as well as recruitment.

While no one has mentioned the draft word yet, they are apparently scrambling the longer the Iraq situitation requires the troop level it has.

Look for the issue to get more visibility the longer we are involved in Iraq.

This is what I thought.MR_GRUMPY
Oct 3, 2003 10:06 AM
If the same troops are still there a year from now,Bush will in big trouble.
Know nothing talking about something he knows nothing of...No_sprint
Oct 3, 2003 8:15 AM
Just 3 weeks ago I was talking to a friend who flys planes for the Navy. He said that retention is so high now that the situation is actually completely opposite of what you think. He told me their looking for ways to get people out.

Where do people come up with these whacky ideas and stupid conspiracy theories? LOL
I think that isn't rightmohair_chair
Oct 3, 2003 8:22 AM
Our friend sn69, who knows these things, posted something a while back saying they weren't allowing people out, not trying to get rid of them. He theorized that when the day comes when they do start allowing officers to resign again, there might be a massive departure, because our forces are being sent on much longer deployments. A lot of people would love to stay in the service, but they have families, and being away for nine months to a year puts a lot of strain on personal relationships.

Maybe I misunderstood sn69, but that was my take on his posts.
Couple of things you didn't consider, though.Cory
Oct 3, 2003 8:28 AM
I haven't kept track of current strength and retention rates, but there are a couple of universal truths that may apply here.
One is that the economy's in the tank, and people are more likely both to enlist and to re-up when they can't find jobs outside. That's been true forever. If things turn around, they may start leaving.
Another is that you're talking to a Naval Aviator, who sees the Navy--already a non-horrible job as military billets go--from an unusual viewpoint. He's an officer, he gets to fly the planes, he takes a hot shower every night and he has enlisted men doing his scut work. As any former Army or Marine lieutenant can tell you, naval officers are treated quite a bit differently even from officers in other branches of the service. I'm not saying he's wrong, but he might not have the entire picture.
I did consider them.No_sprint
Oct 3, 2003 9:10 AM
Just posted the short story is all.
Ummmm ... You might want to check your 'facts' withOldEdScott
Oct 3, 2003 10:04 AM
sn69 (Scott), also a Navy flyboy, who I do believe has had a thing or two to say about this.
Not my opinion, it's the opinion of my friend, the pilot.No_sprint
Oct 3, 2003 10:18 AM
Perhaps you can get the two of them together to argue about it if it means that much to you.
Know nothing talking about something he knows nothing of...sn69
Oct 3, 2003 1:06 PM
That's part of the story (I fly for the Navy too). Retention got really high in terms of reenlistments and officers staying on active duty following 9-11. That cycle is coming due within the next year, however, and that's what the pundits cannot quite reconcile. Our current deployment cycle has shifted right from the previous 6 month deployment cycle to 10-13 months couple with short turn-arounds in between. What that means is that people are getting burned out at an alarming rate. That's not sustainable for any lengthy amount of time. In the meantime, our budget woes have worsened as the funding for these two contingency campaigns (Afghanistan and Iraq) have drained the coffers that were originally earmarked for recapitalization (replacing VERY old equipment).

Lacking a substantial plus-up in funding while still being expected to maintain our current OpsTempo = kick people out to save money.

There's a lot more to this, including food rationing during the "hot" part of the war, budgetary rationing right now, pay restrictions, etc. Not enough time (or patience) to go into it right now. Read through some of my old posts--you'll get the picture.

Like I said, I was just repeating what I'd heard fromNo_sprint
Oct 3, 2003 1:51 PM
a friend in the military.

Furthermore, I have no stake in the situation and believe that all things work themselves out in the end, somehow. I trust the military managers will work something out, that's their job right?
Know nothing talking about something he knows nothing of...OldEdScott
Oct 3, 2003 2:52 PM
Know nothing talking about something he knows nothing of...sn69
Oct 3, 2003 5:30 PM

You owe it to yourself, particularly after your daughter was so callously snatched away by those wicked Texas oilmen. Please note the shifters.

Wow. NICE bike! Too tall for me though. Hey, didOldEdScott
Oct 6, 2003 4:44 AM
you ever get/install your Command shifters? What's the verdict?
Haven't built the bike yet,sn69
Oct 6, 2003 7:09 AM
still collecting parts. I'm short a rear derailler--I've got a spare Ultegra that I could run with the shifters in friction mode, but I'd rather get a Superbe Pro. Rennaisance seems to be the only place I've found lately that still has NOS Superbe rear d's. I've got a Cyclone set, but they're pretty mucked up. Likewise, I'm still down the crankset, although I'm thinking I'll pull the Ultegra one (right size, works with typical Shimano efficiency) from my other bike and replace it with "old" DA.

As for the shifters, I think I'll start with the Command suckers, but I've got some DA downtube shifters held in reserve in case I don't like 'em.
If you decide you don't like the Commands,OldEdScott
Oct 6, 2003 8:12 AM
let me know. I'll likely buy them from you, unless yet another spate of bills pours in from the Imperial Wedding.
'kay...I'll let you know, although I'd probablysn69
Oct 6, 2003 8:19 PM
break with my right leaning inclincations and simply give them to you as a form of socialized bikefare. ...You'd be able to play with them in your reeducation camp cell whilst listening to hours of repeated Rush, Patty B and G. Gordo recordings.

And then I'd feel obliged to send you a bottle ofOldEdScott
Oct 7, 2003 8:29 AM
fine Bourbon, and THEN where would you be? This could get dicey.
Oct 3, 2003 8:08 PM
it's a profoundly complex issue that involves subsets of tangental issues, some of which directly relate to the current war and others that predate it (including the Clintonian Atrophy and something called T-notch--ask your buddy about that gem of Naval Aviation policy).

We HOPE they work something out, but more often than not they rob the future to pay for today. The Navy in particular has some misguided intrinsic psychological need to never say "no, we can't continue doing more with less." It's part of the culture of the sea service where sacrifice is a generalized way of life for us. Still, it doesn't make good business sense, and the pundits in places like Fleet Forces Command and N78 (again, ask your friend...or I can finally sit down and pen the tutorial I've long spoken about) are trying to reconcile reality with desires.

It's a long, complicated tale. FWIW, I just returned to a squadron after two years of TYCOM (again, ask him/her)staff duty innundated with staff duty nonsense and the goofy ravings of the Air Board. I've seen more than I probably should have in terms of my level of cynicism, and it left a bad taste in my mouth. The admiral I worked for called it a "glimpse into the X-rated side of DOD."

Oct 6, 2003 7:19 AM
and it's nothing I've claimed to be an expert in, have a stake in, have the ability or knowledge to have a positive effect on, etc.

Having a good grasp on history, I believe you are mostly correct in your opinion how war sometimes robs the future to pay for today.

We've survived it all in the past and I'm sure we won't collapse now. We've never been a nation to just throw in the towel.
who's the know nothing now?MJ
Oct 7, 2003 3:25 AM
or would you like to apologise after crawling into your that's what my friend told me defence when called on it? - you can't go around telling people that something isn't a problem becaase your mate said something different - partiucularly when the media is full of reports detailing the difficulties of US troop deployments

really - you need to work on how you interpret information
Certainly not before the election....bboc
Oct 3, 2003 8:35 AM
But if Bush gets reelected, then the probability is greatly increased.
no; maybe never, short of WWWIII nmDougSloan
Oct 5, 2003 8:00 PM