Rep Rangel introduces Draft Bill (for Iran?!):

Rep Rangel introduces Draft Bill (for Iran?!):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=53409

On 29 May 2006 15:14:30 -0700, wrote:

Rep Rangel introduces Draft Bill (for Iran?!):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=53409

Rangel has done this before--about three years ago. At that time the
bill went nowhere until just before the presidential election at which
time it was defeated something like 425 to 5. Rangel didn't vote for
his own bill.

If you won't "cowerfromthetruth" you should note that Rangel is a
Democrat, exceptionally liberal (bordering on socialist), from a
heavily minority district in Detroit and adamantly against the
administration. A draft bill is totally ludicrous. Conscripts don't
have the retainability or the necessary skills for the configuration
of the current US military establishment. If you've watched operations
recently you might have noted that we no longer depend upon massed
forces marching in lock-step across the plains of Waterloo.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On 29 May 2006 15:14:30 -0700, wrote:


Rep Rangel introduces Draft Bill (for Iran?!):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=53409


Rangel has done this before--about three years ago. At that time the
bill went nowhere until just before the presidential election at which
time it was defeated something like 425 to 5. Rangel didn't vote for
his own bill.

If you won't "cowerfromthetruth" you should note that Rangel is a
Democrat, exceptionally liberal (bordering on socialist), from a
heavily minority district in Detroit and adamantly against the
administration. A draft bill is totally ludicrous. Conscripts don't
have the retainability or the necessary skills for the configuration
of the current US military establishment. If you've watched operations
recently you might have noted that we no longer depend upon massed
forces marching in lock-step across the plains of Waterloo.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed, Rep. Charlie Rangel actually represents New York's 15th
Congressional district. The district covers Upper Manhattan and parts
of the Bronx. The district also includes Rikers Island, make of that
what you will.

ALV

Ed Rasimus wrote:

A draft bill is totally ludicrous. Conscripts don't
have the retainability or the necessary skills for the configuration
of the current US military establishment. If you've watched operations
recently you might have noted that we no longer depend upon massed
forces marching in lock-step across the plains of Waterloo.

Who says conscription has to be non-selective?

There's already something of a seperate draft for medical personel.

If a general draft were implemented again, why could it not be set up
to cherry pick only those with the skills / general education /
maturity the military thinks they can work with.

IMHO a draft is a bad idea because getting into situation that would
require it are bad ideas.

But I don't see why one could not be workable, if it were designed
around the same personel needs that the military is currently
struggling to find voluneteer applications for.

wrote in
oups.com:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

A draft bill is totally ludicrous. Conscripts don't
have the retainability or the necessary skills for the configuration
of the current US military establishment. If you've watched operations
recently you might have noted that we no longer depend upon massed
forces marching in lock-step across the plains of Waterloo.

Who says conscription has to be non-selective?

There's already something of a seperate draft for medical personel.

Huh? Please explain. There are no draftees in service.

If a general draft were implemented again, why could it not be set up
to cherry pick only those with the skills / general education /
maturity the military thinks they can work with.

We don't have any need for a levee en masse on the scale of WWII
or even Korea. Nor has the decision been made to fight any
potential Iran operation with conscripts per Vietnam.

IMHO a draft is a bad idea because getting into situation that would
require it are bad ideas.

Sometimes its not our call.

But I don't see why one could not be workable, if it were designed
around the same personel needs that the military is currently
struggling to find voluneteer applications for.

I say draft lawyers first. We'll all be the better for it.

IBM

Ian MacLure wrote:
wrote in

Who says conscription has to be non-selective?

There's already something of a seperate draft for medical personel.

Huh? Please explain. There are no draftees in service.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. There is already the
structure of a seperate, targeted program in existence, but it has not
been "turned on".

"The Health Care Personnel Delivery System (HCPDS) is a standby plan
developed for the Selective Service System at the request of Congress.
If needed it would be used to draft health care personnel in a crisis.
It is designed to be implemented in connection with a national
mobilization in an emergency, and then only if Congress and the
President approve the plan and pass and sign legislation to enact it."

The point is not that it's not active, but that the idea of having a
targeted draft program has already been developed. If it can be done
for one job need, it can be done for another.

If a general draft were implemented again, why could it not be set up
to cherry pick only those with the skills / general education /
maturity the military thinks they can work with.

We don't have any need for a levee en masse on the scale of WWII
or even Korea.

The phrase "cherry pick" implies going through a large pool of
candidates to find the small fraction who have what you need. In
short, don't lower the standards for enlistment, but actually raise
them a lot, then virtually march everyone through the recruiting office
and keep the phone numbers of the small fraction who meet your
standards.

Everyone assumes a draftee army would be composed of high school
dropouts, but there's no reason the process could not be structured to
produce a smaller army composed exclusively of scholar athletes, or
whoever the generals think would be the best recruits.

IMHO a draft is a bad idea because getting into situation that would
require it are bad ideas.

Sometimes its not our call.

Perhaps, but the current administation is not exactly known for
creative thinking when it comes to seeking alternatives.

In article .com,
wrote:

Ian MacLure wrote:
wrote in

Who says conscription has to be non-selective?

There's already something of a seperate draft for medical personel.

Huh? Please explain. There are no draftees in service.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. There is already the
structure of a seperate, targeted program in existence, but it has not
been "turned on".

"The Health Care Personnel Delivery System (HCPDS) is a standby plan
developed for the Selective Service System at the request of Congress.
If needed it would be used to draft health care personnel in a crisis.
It is designed to be implemented in connection with a national
mobilization in an emergency, and then only if Congress and the
President approve the plan and pass and sign legislation to enact it."

Sort of like registering for Selective Service when there is no draft.

On 29 May 2006 16:55:33 -0700, wrote:

Sorry, I should have been more specific. There is already the
structure of a seperate, targeted program in existence, but it has not
been "turned on".

"The Health Care Personnel Delivery System (HCPDS) is a standby plan

Well, sure. There's also a standby draft for enlisted soldiers, though
I wonder how well it could actually work, cranking up a
thirty-five-year old system in a much larger and much more contentious
country. (Besides, who'd train them? The entire U.S. Army would have
to stand down for the first year.)



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

I support Adam Smith. Whether or not your draftee army is one of
technical specialists or high school drop outs the fact remains that
recruitment will NOT be at commercial rates. In a capitalist society
rates of pay are set by supply ans demand and the military, like
everyone else should hire on a supply and demand basis. This will
ensure that resources are applied optimally. If the military is
unattractive, steps should be taken to make it more attractive.

ANYTHING ELSE IS A DENIAL OF BASIC CAPITALIST PRINCIPLES

Furthermore cheap labor tends to make organizations less efficient. If
you are are paying a market price.

1) There will be transparancy over defense costs. Part of the argument
with China is the fact that their forces are not costed on the same
basis as ours.

2) The cost of conscription to the civil economy is the market rate.
This is pure Adam Smith. If he military then costs its labor on a
different basis its practices will effectively be draining the civil
economy of its resources.

Letvus take another example. In England there is a shortage of Science
teachers. Should science gradusates be conscripted to teach. Of course
not. It would do nothing for the organization of schools. In England
one of the major sources of stress is poor discipline. Consciption
would mask this and make it even worse.

The public sector is in a position to make its own rules. One simple
fact - If Bush were to create a Spanish speaking foreign legion with a
US passport at the end of it he might well be applauded. If you were to
employ an illegal you would be breaking the law. Actually you can
become bilingual if you learn a language when young - on an illegal
knee!

The question of why labor is more valuable in the US than it is in
Mexico is an interesting one to debate. Certauinly if you want "trabajo
barato" in any part of the public sector, there is your solution.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On 29 May 2006 15:14:30 -0700, wrote:

Rep Rangel introduces Draft Bill (for Iran?!):

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0...ic.php?t=53409

Rangel has done this before--about three years ago. At that time the
bill went nowhere until just before the presidential election at which
time it was defeated something like 425 to 5. Rangel didn't vote for
his own bill.

If you won't "cowerfromthetruth" you should note that Rangel is a
Democrat, exceptionally liberal (bordering on socialist), from a
heavily minority district in Detroit and adamantly against the
administration. A draft bill is totally ludicrous.

Last time I checked our military was stretched extremely thin. Whicha has
allowed the Iranian version of Hitler to thumbs his nose at us while he
acquires nukes. And making the assumption that military action (if required)
against Iran can be limited to airstrikes is ludicrous.

Conscripts don't
have the retainability or the necessary skills for the configuration
of the current US military establishment.

That depends on who and how long you draft them for. Although it might be
quite possible to add some division the old fashioned way... with
volunteers.

If you've watched operations
recently you might have noted that we no longer depend upon massed
forces marching in lock-step across the plains of Waterloo.


One of the worst mistakes we can make is to assume that we will fight future
wars like the last one.

In the case of Iraq they were weakened by a previous war, had an arms
embargo and were studied in minute detail for the twelve years before we
invaded.

If we are really lucky the next major war will be fought after the next
Presidential election. The present fools have show themselves to be
completely incompetent.

BTW Have you read Cobra II yet?



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com