Kerry NO-DRAFT Plan to cost $7 Billion, NO DRAFT, even w/Iraq

[Dems Will Win]

The major media are not talking about any of the plans John Kerry has, nor do they cover hardly anything that John Kerry says, especially if it is about the draft. So you would never know it, but John Kerry has a No-Draft Plan, a plan to strengthen the military in key areas yet draw down U.S. troop levels in Iraq by internationalizing the situation and then getting out as soon as possible.

Here are the five main points of Kerry’s No-Draft Plan:

1. Move some paper-pushers to combat (lots of potential there)

2. Increase enlistment with real scholarships, benefits and pay raises

3. Let troops know Special Ops will hunt al-Queda, no more invasions needed, so re-up rate goes up. "Primarily a law enforcement effort, not a full military effort", said John Kerry on Meet The Press.

4. Start a "Civilian Stability Corps" that would help in reconstructing Afghanistan and Iraq and relieve military pressure.

5. GET FOREIGN TROOPS TO COME INTO INSTEAD OF LEAVE IRAQ.

Here Kerry calls for a Civilian Stability Corps, made up of volunteers:

"...I propose that we enlist thousands of them in a Civilian Stability Corps, a reserve organization of volunteers ready to help win the peace in troubled places. Like military reservists, they will have peacetime jobs; but in times of national need, they will be called into service to restore roads, renovate schools, open hospitals, repair power systems, draft a constitution, or build a police force. A Civilian Stability Corps can bring the best of America to the worst of the world—and reduce pressure on the military."
- Source: Kerry, John. "Protecting Our Military Families in Times of War: A Military Family Bill of Rights." March 17, 2004. http://johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0317.html >

In April, on a conference call with 130 College Newspaper Editors, Kerry said “No Draft”, that he would have a sensible foreign policy that would not require reinstatement. And in June, Kerry told a Wisconsin high school that if he is elected a draft would be "absolutely unnecessary".

Kerry’s plan calls for increasing active-duty troop levels by two divisions, 40,000 people. He also doubles the number of Special Ops troops. Half the 40,000 being added are civil engineering and half are combat, costing an extra $7 billion, but it relieves the pressure on the Guard and Reserves for overseas deployments and essentially saves the Volunteer Army.

Kerry charges that Bush is ruining the Volunteer approach with long Guard and Reserve deployments and numerous stop-loss orders, which Kerry says is a “Back-door Draft”. Since Kerry will increase pay, benefits, scholarships and reduce long deployments of regular troops and the reserves, if he is elected the re-enlistment rates and recruitment rates will return to normal. Recently, troops returning from Iraq are reportedly leaving the Service in huge numbers, although denied by DoD (see David Hackworth, Voting With their Feet http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38644).

With this No-Draft Plan, Kerry will not have to resort to conscription, even after Bush has made such a mess of it in Iraq. Kerry has also pledged that he will push renewable energy development and true energy independence, “so that we never have soldiers dying for oil”.

Kerry has criticized the inequality of the draft, that the poor and minorities are inducted in higher numbers than their fair share and that the draft is a source of conflict. John Kerry will not reinstate the draft—outside of the invasion of the United States by China or something like that.

The choice is thus clear to all voters. Vote for Bush and you are also voting for the resumption of the draft—to man his hidden agenda of invading more countries and staying in Iraq forever.

Or vote for Kerry and you are voting PNAC out of the White House, and with it Bush’s secret plan to bring back the draft so U.S. companies can dominate the world’s remaining oil supply.

Finally, a draft is morally reprehensible, an infringement of freedom against the principles of the Constitution. We know that Bush cares nothing about morality when it comes to Iraq and that Kerry has over the years always expressed real opposition to the draft for a number of moral and ethical reasons. Having lived through the Vietnam era, Kerry knows well the long history of conflict and opposition that the draft has wrought.

John Kerry will not reinstate the draft, but Bush is secretly gearing up the whole system right now for the summer of next year by holding a mock draft lottery this summer, gearing up the Alternative Service and fine-tuning the Medical Draft. Karl Rove even secretly polled the GOP Caucus on the DRAFT and they said they would support Bush if he asks for it. And a secret 6-page SSS proposal has been put into effect with the SSS RIGHT NOW "designing procedures" for a massive registration and database that would track and potentially induct men and women under 34 who possess critical skills such as linguist, computer expert or engineer. The DoD already says these are in shortege! Along with nurses--RIGHT NOW! Bush is just waiting until he is reselected and then WHAMMO--the first DRAFT LOTTERY could be June 15, 2005.

Moral opposition to conscription goes all the way back to the year 1814. In a response to a proposed draft to fight the British, Daniel Webster perhaps said it best:

“Is this, sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, sir, indeed it is not.

"The Constitution is libeled, foully libeled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasure and their own blood a Magna Carta to be slaves.

"Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it?"

BUSH ’04 = DRAFT ‘05

Links:

http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

Who do you know who could be affected by a wide-ranging draft? Dems Will Win urges everyone to send this off to friends, family and the media and to start talking about the issue, especially with young people, women and Nader voters.

[nolabels]

1. "Move some paper-pushers to combat (lots of potential there)"

That's the ticket, put all them boys in Pentagon on the front line :D

[Dems Will Win]

2. 20,000 will be new active-duty combat, the rest :Reconstruction Specialist

There are 2.5 million in the Armed Services, .5 million are active-duty. Kerry can surely get around 10,000 from the paper-pushers, plus the rest from increased recruiting and re-ups. Once the troops have a Silver Star winner as Commander in Chief, instead of AWOL as Commander in Thief, the re-ups and enlistment will go back to normal.

[mike_c]

3. I predict a ten year slump in military enlistment...

...no matter what name it's called (e.g. "reconstruction specialist"). In misusing the military, and in particular the Reserves and Guard, the neocons have dramatically exposed the loopholes through which military service can be abused for political purposes. Who wants to fight and die so that shrub (or his successor) can puff himself up and strut on the deck of an aircraft carrier?

There might be some takers for the "reconstruction specialist" gig, but look at the effect that U.S. military "reconstruction" has had on NGO aid provision in Afghanistan-- it blurs the line between the military and aid workers, resulting in aid workers being targeted and a net decrease in reconstruction aid (e.g. the departure of MSF).

The ten year prediction is solely a seat-of-the-pants estimate and is likely to change if the economy worsens seriously, etc., but my guess is that it's going to take a lot of time to undo the perception that enlistment is a one-way ticket to foreign-policy thug-land.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. What is the success rate for your past predictions?

Did you predict Kerry would be the Democratic nominee, for example?


I'm just wondering whether your 'predictions' have any credibility, or whether they are actually valueless.

[mike_c]

5. just my opinion, actually....

Thought I made that clear.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. So is that a 0% success rate?

Just wondering.

Of course you are only expressing your opinion. What I am asking, is how often in the past has your opinion been correct when predicting future events.


Also, I'm wondering what your source was for the data on past and current military enlistment rates that you used to arrive at this prediction about future military enlistment rates.

[mike_c]

7. let's back up and start over....

My working hypothesis is that shrubco has seriously damaged the perception of military service-- it's inherent risks and the nobility of serving-- among people in the most desirable age groups for enlistment. If that hypothesis is true, then it follows that enlistments will decline until either something happens to alter that perception or another-- currently disinterested-- group of children reaches enlistment age. Absent some galvanizing event like another Pearl Harbor, I suggest that will take about ten years or so.

I'm actually quite good at making accurate predictions from working hypotheses-- when I have the data necessary to frame the hypotheses correctly. Not bragging, and I'm not able to offer any quantitative proof, so you'll just have to accept that assertion as my opinion as well. Testing hypotheses is what I do for a living, so at least I know the rules. I don't have any real data in this instance-- only my perceptions and opinions about current events-- so I make no claims about the accuracy of the resultant prediction. I offer it as a topic for discussion only.

However, if my hypothesis is correct, then the prediction follows naturally, don't you agree?

[GmoneyOwnsAll]

8. I hope he mentions this in the debates...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. If all the myriad assumptions and leaps of logic you are making turn out

to be correct, then your prediction has a possibility of being true, yes.



Is this your way of saying you didn't use any data on past and current enlistment rates when you made your prediction of future enlistment rates?

[mike_c]

10. no data means no data....

Caveat emptor. Nothing more than my $0.02.

[Dems Will Win]

11. kick