![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jducoeurListening to the radio this morning, they played a long segment from Bush's most recent speech, and it's unsettling. He describes the need to "expand the military", and says that Gates' first task is to figure out how to do so. He describes the so-called "war on terror" as "the calling of this generation", and is pretty explicit about the fact that this is going to take a long time to fight it.
Can this be read as anything other than the prelude to a draft? That's sure as heck what it sounds like. Ugly as we've thought the politics have been to date, they may be about to get a *lot* nastier...
Can this be read as anything other than the prelude to a draft? That's sure as heck what it sounds like. Ugly as we've thought the politics have been to date, they may be about to get a *lot* nastier...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-20 03:58 pm (UTC)He can prelude all he likes.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-20 04:07 pm (UTC)1) There is but one Senator's life between control and a struggle for control of that branch of government. I am not feeling quite so glib about W's prelude.
2) I believe that Congressional approval is supposed to be required before we go to war too, but I am not sure that has ever actually mattered a damn in recent history.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-20 04:23 pm (UTC)Seems we have a new Cold War.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-20 06:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-20 07:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-23 02:39 am (UTC)Regardless of what any subsequent law says, and regardless of how things
actually have worked since WWII, no he bloody well can't!
Don't believe me? Read the Constitution. Which, is still, believe it or not, supposed to be the supreme law of the land, and unchangeable except by the amendment process.
The power to wage war is vested in Congress. Not the president.
"Wage war" vs. "declare war"
Date: 2006-12-29 03:40 am (UTC)I'm not sure there's anything unconstitutional about the War Powers Act. Somebody must have the power to send troops to fight. If it's the President, then the Act is unnecessary; if it's the Congress, then the Act is simply one way the Congress exercises that power.
Now, if the Framers who opposed foreign entanglements had taken more care, they could have avoided this problem. For example, they could have forbidden the establishment of a Federal peacetime military (that would've been the job of the state militias), or forbidden the use of force outside US territory without a declaration of war. The first would have meant that, in peacetime, the President had nothing to command; the second would have blocked the President from sending in the troops without Congressional authority.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-20 06:23 pm (UTC)Well, aside from the fact that said Senator is steadily improving, and there is ample precedent for a Senator to maintain his or her seat while incapacitated, the result is that it'd be a while before there's an actual strugggle...
Struggle for control != control. At this time, the GOP cannot pass what it wants without work. And given what the last election indicated about public opinon, many GOP Congresscritters would have to think twice before drafting anyone.
2) I believe that Congressional approval is supposed to be required before we go to war too, but I am not sure that has ever actually mattered a damn in recent history.
Well, there's a disconnect there - "war" is a semi-technical term, when it comes to law. We've never needed Congressional approval to get into armed conflict. The question is only over how long that conflict is allowed to continue, and how far it is allowed to go.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-20 06:38 pm (UTC)Also, do remember that it was a Democratic Senator who called for a draft first. It was a stupid rhetorical maneuver (and one he may well live to regret), but I suspect it would get dragged in as "evidence" of bipartisan support for the idea.
We'll see. A large part of me still believes that Bush can't be *that* politically insane. But history has tended to demonstrate otherwise...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-20 03:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-20 06:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-20 03:59 pm (UTC)On the other hand, if the unwilling are actually going to be drafted, maybe protest will get more traction.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-20 04:16 pm (UTC)Or, he'll announce it might happen, and then do something else egregious (like, say, suspend habeas corpus for citizens) while everyone is in arrears.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-20 05:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-20 05:07 pm (UTC)Hey, what about the XXYers?
Politics doesn't make rational sense. If it did it'd be a science...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-20 05:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-20 09:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-20 06:47 pm (UTC)Do people realize how long it would take?
Date: 2006-12-20 05:31 pm (UTC)On an entirely different note. The decline in recruitment, following the surge in recruitment post-9/11, is the ultimate vindication of the citizen army. If the citizenry believes in the cause, they will serve. If the leaders lose the trust of the people, then they will not volunteer to serve.
Re: Do people realize how long it would take?
Date: 2006-12-20 06:44 pm (UTC)But I'm at a loss to find another way to parse "expanding the military". And his rhetoric was fascinating: it did *not* talk nearly so much about the current situation in Iraq as on the "war on terror", which he painted very much as a long-term issue. The result is something that sounds much more like a neocon wet dream than a practical solution to problems...
Re: Do people realize how long it would take?
Date: 2006-12-20 06:49 pm (UTC)So, business as usual then, eh?
Re: Do people realize how long it would take?
Date: 2006-12-20 06:47 pm (UTC)Yes, and all the better reason (if you support the idea at all, which I don't) to start ASAP. The rhetoriticians may not have acknowledged thatthis is a stupid war, but they have given in and admitted that it cannot be won soon. They want to be in for the long haul.
On an entirely different note. The decline in recruitment, following the surge in recruitment post-9/11, is the ultimate vindication of the citizen army. If the citizenry believes in the cause, they will serve. If the leaders lose the trust of the people, then they will not volunteer to serve.
A most excellent point.
Re: Do people realize how long it would take?
Date: 2006-12-20 08:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-20 09:17 pm (UTC)I think in order to *successfully* pull off such a move would require, at minimum, a major terrorist strike within the 3 months before the election. Bonus points if they (the terrorists) were US citizens, or could somehow be linked to the Democrats. I think that total demonization of the Democrats would be necessary in order to cancel an election and have it stick. Again, groundwork for that has been well laid, but they would need something that could serve (at least in the short term) as a convincing smoking gun to put it over the top.
Re: Do people realize how long it would take?
Date: 2006-12-20 09:35 pm (UTC)Re: Do people realize how long it would take?
Date: 2006-12-20 10:31 pm (UTC)Stealing an election, sure: that's why the Diebold thing is so scary. But I don't think they'd try anything quite as blatant as simply neglecting to hold an election...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-20 10:01 pm (UTC)Once you are in, your time in can be extended, and often is. If you are sent on active duty, you can be sent back. If you are on active duty, that time can be extended. If you leave the military, you are bribed to enter the reserves or guard. If you do, you can be activated at any time, and sent.
If you retire from either, you can be reactivated.
If you are in certain key specialties, you can be reactivated and extended for any time, and often will be. I have a good friend who has served in active military intelligence. He just managed to muster out, and is in danger of being reactivated and sent to Iraq if there is a "surge". (I hate that phrase, it implies an ebb.)
So, there is that draft. Make the mistake of signing up once, in your teens, and you are owned for life.
Now, as for the rest of us, there is no danger if you have never signed up. that draft would be new.... and probably inevitable, given how badly the various branches (especially the Army) are suffering from this debacle.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-21 03:32 am (UTC)There already is a draft. But it is only for people who EVER volunteered once before.
Not only has this been true since the founding of the republic, it is generally stressed several times when you join. I got it at least a half-dozen times before I took the final oath committing me to the Massachusetts National Guard, and in fact, in the first Iraq War, I briefly wondered if I would be called up. It was very clear to me that though I was signing up for six years of active duty, they were getting options on me until my early forties. People who didn't understand that either ignored what they were told and signed or weren't paying attention.
Make the mistake of signing up once,
Interesting that you have such a surety that those of us who did join in our youths were making a mistake. In my case, at least, I think it was an excellent choice in every way, and wouldn't have lost any of it. Now it is true that I didn't end up going to fight in a war, and that I don't know if I would have retained my enthusiasm for my choices if I had, but I do like to think so.
that draft would be new.... and probably inevitable, given how badly the various branches (especially the Army) are suffering from this debacle.
I don't think it is particularly inevitable. The army is taking something of a beating, but the defense of our nation doesn't actually require much of an army - who is there to invade us? As long as our navy is intact, then for the problems that armies can solve for defense, we don't have to worry about much more than fending off Mexico and Canada. Shouldn't be too difficult.
Now it is true that we would need a much larger army if we want an army of occupation, but that has almost never been what the US Army has been built for, and for good reason - our structure is specifically designed to make military coups in this country very difficult, and the formulation which is almost required for that is a relatively small professional army and the bulk of forces being primarily state militias.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-21 03:50 am (UTC)I'll just top now, with that as an apology.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-21 04:28 pm (UTC)Our military cannot use stupid soldiers. We rely too much on high-tech, and judgement in how to use it. One thing I noticed in basic training is that it was the dumb guys who were getting weeded out.
The problem of being wrong is a lot more complex. I think it is useful to have a military to defend ourselves, which of course also requires some offensive capability. But sadly, the military can also be used for ill, and so it is quite possible to find yourself joining an organization for a good reason but ending up doing poor things.
That can happen in lots of places besides the military of course, but in most other situations it is relatively easy to walk away from evil. In the military, one will often be forced to confront it more directly, with no easy chance of avoiding participation. It is the thing that I think makes the military life such a hard one.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-21 02:29 pm (UTC)Correct -- which is precisely why it's worrying that Bush is *specifically* saying that he wants to grow the Army and Marines. (He was explicit about that in his speech.) That smells very much like he doesn't understand (or is deliberately ignoring) what you're saying here...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-20 11:25 pm (UTC)Bush's primary consideration is always what's best for him, and he listens the most to people who tell him what he wants to hear. A draft would make him tremendously unpopular (even more than now.) Calling for serious sacrifices would make him tremendously unpopular. They might be necessary to actually have a small chance of accomplishing the things he says he wants to accomplish, and they might be better for the country than what he wants without a draft and national sacrifice (though worse than just not doing what he wants), but they'd be worse for him and his reputation, so they won't happen.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-21 02:23 pm (UTC)Granted, he could be completely full of shit and lying through his teeth about the whole thing -- that would certainly be consistent with prior habits. But he's talking himself into a pretty deep hole here, it seems to me...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-21 03:30 pm (UTC)Plus, there's not just the troops issues -- there's the infrastructure. Oodles of military bases have been decommissioned in the past 20 years. A big military needs housing, hospitals, schools, runways, etc.
Expecting to fail
Date: 2006-12-22 01:27 am (UTC)Good point. He may not actually care if he gets the expansion he's proposing; if he doesn't, then he can blame the Democratic Congress for his failure.
Re: Expecting to fail
Date: 2006-12-22 01:40 pm (UTC)My God...yes he is
Date: 2006-12-23 02:45 am (UTC)Selective Service System will be conducted in 2008. Things that make ya go "Hmmm".
Parents, hide your children.
--- Steffan /Steve
(#342/365 -- God be praised -- in the draft lottery of 1971)