Stop/Loss Keeps Ranks Full [More draft rhetoric]

[Scooter24]

This year, $26.1 million will be spent by the Selective Service System to track 13.5 million potential soldiers.

But don't worry guys, you won't get a call anytime soon.

In this country, we don't do draft very well.

The draft is a political profanity rarely uttered in the halls of the Pentagon since its abolition in 1973. It's a staple of the foreign policy menu, but ordering it could cause bloating, diarrhea and an irreversible case of voter's revenge.

Instead, what we do is "stop/loss."

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_draft_082204,00.html

[teryang]

1. We ain't seen nothing yet....

If dipshit gets backs in office, all checks will be off the abuse of the armed forces. The downsized, outsourced, part time, low benefits forces, will be entirely dominated by corporate agendas and political expediency (defense contractors, energy lobbies, various Israeli lobbies, and Karl Rove).

Tooth to tail and armed forces lite are a fraud on the U.S. Armed Forces meant to line war profiteer pockets at the expense of patriotic volunteer manpower. What the armed forces and their dedicated personnel are used for now has little to do with national defense. While talking about "armed forces lite" Herr Rumsfeldt and the defense contractors are running a huge "cold war" outsized operation emptying the treasury of future generations.

If you did a cost benefit analysis on American defense expenditures which equal that of the rest of entire world combined, you'd find that it only collaterally serves its purpose while being entirely at the service of the "have more" crust of GOP support. Is it any suprise the guy running the GOP convention is a Raytheon lobbyist?

See this Asis Times article about this years $500 billion tab:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/FH19Dj01.html

Military spending nears $1 trillion
By Thalif Deen

<"Despite President Bush's rhetoric about realigning military forces, the new military budget still funds Cold War weapons designed to counter expected Soviet developments. But the Soviet Union hasn't existed for more than a decade," she said.<snip>

<Under the Bush administration, Pentagon spending has increased more than 23% (in adjusted dollars). But while many Americans think that money is for the "war on terrorism", that is not the case, Berrigan said. The defense allocation does not include the costs of ongoing fighting - about $5 billion each month - in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"These costs are paid through emergency supplementals. So far, the US Congress has signed off on $190 billion in supplemental spending for war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan," she said.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that between fiscal year 2005 and the end of the decade, the US will spend $2.2 trillion on the military, feeding the already spiraling global defense spending, Berrigan said. >

[SheilaT]

2. And what if

combat operations REALLY increase in Iraq? What if it becomes "necessary" to invade Iran because they have WMD's?

Maybe young men and women are currently volunteer for the regular army, navy, and air force, or the National Guard version of those in numbers sufficient to maintain our troop strength everywhere needed. But all it will take is one more little invasion, and there will be a draft so fast it will make your head spin.