home

Back Door Draft Proposed

We warned it was coming, and so it begins - the back door draft:

Army leaders are considering seeking a change in Pentagon policy that would allow for longer and more frequent call-ups of some reservists to meet the demands of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, a senior Army official said yesterday.

Reservists are being used heavily to fill key military support jobs, particularly in specialty areas, but Army authorities are having increasing difficulty limiting the active-duty time of some normally part-time soldiers to a set maximum of two years, the official said. He described the National Guard's 15 main combat units as close to being "tapped out."

Last year, a temporary increase of 30,000 reservists was authorized. Now it is being proposed that the increase be made permanent. Especially if, as anticipated, a large number of troops will be needed in Iraq for the next four or five years. The actual change amounts to this:

Under current policy, a reservist is not to serve on active duty for more than 24 months, although those months can be split among multiple deployments that occur over a period of years.

The change under consideration, the Army official said, would essentially make a reservist eligible for an unlimited number of call-ups but stipulate that no single mobilization would last more than 24 consecutive months.

How much will the reservists take before rebelling?

The news comes as the Bush administration confronts rising controversy over the shape and size of the U.S. military, particularly whether the active-duty and reserve forces are robust enough to meet the many demands placed upon them. Soldiers and their families are also expressing frustration at repeat deployments to Iraq and tours of duty that have already been extended.

As one official says:

"We are concerned about the health of this all-volunteer force," the official said.

Another expert says:

The reserves are already overstretched," said retired Army Col. Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of international relations at Boston University. "To change the rules will almost certainly backfire and accelerate the deterioration of the reserves."

After the reserves, who do you think will be left? Go here and watch Bush lie about it.

< Judge Dismisses Charges Against Katrina Leung | Michael Jackson vs. Tsunami Coverage >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#1)
    by john horse on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 03:39:20 AM EST
    Another good article on how our military is being stretched to the breaking point was the recent Washington Post story of the memo written by the Chief of the Army Reserves criticizing current policies and practices. According to Lt Gen Helmly, the Army Reserves is unable "under current policies, procedures and practices ... to meet mission requirements associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom." He said it is rapidly degenerating into a "broken force." He also criticized the practice of requiring each Reserve soldier who receives a mobilization order with less than 30 days notice to sign a "volunteer statement" in order to reduce the number of reported cases of short-notice, involuntary mobilizations. Currently many of those who volunteer for duty in Iraq are "those who often enjoy lesser responsible positions in civilian life." More evidence that the present policy in Iraq is unsustainable.

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#2)
    by john horse on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 03:54:47 AM EST
    If Republicans really cared about supporting our troops, they wouldn't allow them to be treated like cr*p.

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#3)
    by soccerdad on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 04:02:47 AM EST
    And treating them like cr*p is what will destroy the all volunteer army. Bush doesn'tcare he'll just have a real draft.

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 06:15:31 AM EST
    we get the government we deserve. Although I am not sure in this case. People like Dr Ace, Jim, maybe even Cliffie deserve the outcome of this government, but they will probably skate outside the impact. Armchair warriors.

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 06:53:39 AM EST
    This is the first real sign of the begginning of the end in Iraq. This will not go over well with the Reserves & National Guard. They will increasingly vote w/ their feet. We simply do not have enough troops to continue to fill the troop commitment in Iraq. W

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#6)
    by legion on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 07:33:40 AM EST
    Actually, this isn't a particularly revolutionary idea. As I was told a couple of years ago by a Guardsman activated for a 'one year' tour, his year could be turned into two by Presidential (or, I believe SecDef) order. After that, he had to be released. BUT, if he is assigned to a different operation while on active duty (like, say, a natural disaster/humanitarian relief operation), that would RESET HIS CLOCK and the 24-month max would start all over. That said, this is what I was told by one guardsman... any policy experts at hand to confirm or deny this?

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#7)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 07:53:56 AM EST
    Why are they doing this when every Republican knows we have 20,000,000 new recruits just days away from the battlefield?

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimcee on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 08:39:05 AM EST
    This is not a draft, period. It is part of the contract you sign when you agree to go into the Reserves. A draft is involuntary conscription not a voluntary agreement no matter how you try to spin it.

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mike on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 08:42:34 AM EST
    jimcee: Hence the title, "back door draft".

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#10)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:29:47 AM EST
    “Hence the title, "back door draft".” Or more aptly, fulfilling a contractual obligation. I guess that doesn’t sound as ominous.

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:14:09 AM EST
    ca - I wonder if you'd be such a jerk to my face? I suspect not. During Hugo (and previously) the Gov. of NC issued several orders changing call-up rules for the NC National Guard. He also halted retirements, job changes, and enlistment terminations. I guess that was a draft too. Buy my position on this topic is pretty easy: I encourage all lefties to keep shouting this from their ecologically correct rooftops. Oh, yes, and vote for HRC too if you get the chance. -C

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:16:19 AM EST
    i thought back door was how, ppj and cliff entertained each other

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:18:30 AM EST
    I can't call it a good thing, but I can't let you call it a back-door 'draft.' It's nothing of the kind. But, I guess I can't disagree with the conclusion that it's another sign of how stupid I am for supporting this President. Oh, and how well and truly f'd we are. That too.

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:41:30 AM EST
    Yup, Cliff, "CA" apparently stands for Condescending Arrogance.

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#15)
    by soccerdad on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:46:17 AM EST
    semantics aside, it could have serious consequences for the state of the all voluteer army. It is a change in "policy" and no one likes it when the rules are changed in mid stream. How much they dislike it will be determined by the exact circumstances. Changes as Cliff described will probably lead to a little grumbling which disappears since they are helping their neighbors. Being sent to Iraq for much longer than expected, with poor equipment etc will lead to serious griping a lower than desored re-enlistment and new enlistment.

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 11:16:15 AM EST
    I agree with the posters above that the term "draft" or even "back-door draft" is inaccurate. I was a Guardsman in the 80's, fortunately never called to Active Duty, but aware of the contract I voluntarily signed that included that possibility. That said, I think the proper terminology should be "changing the rules to keep Guards and Reserves on Active Duty way past the 24-month limit they understood when they voluntarily signed a contract to serve our country in order to avoid the politically damaging prospect of a conscripted military force necessary to support an unending military fiasco designed to create an American oil-company-and-military-base friendly puppet state in the Middle East." Of course, that's a whole lot more difficult to say than "back-door draft". Following this precedent, I will be informing my wife that I'm considering a change of policy regarding the contract we signed guaranteeing mutual sexual fidelity until death do we part. I know that when she signed the contract, she understood that she would be my only sexual partner for life; however, in light of the recent divorce of Halle Berry and her husband, the policy change is necessary to meet the demands of my lustful naughty bits after watching "Catwoman". Seriously, if they want to change the 24-month rule, fine, but it should only apply to new recruits joining the Guard and Reserves. If they want to voluntarily sign that contract, fully understanding that there's no limit to the amount of Active Duty deployments they'll serve, I'm all for it. But then, what will be the difference between Guard/Reserve and regular military? [SIGH] Here's to hoping my 21-year-old brother gets a high draft-lottery number... "Radical" Russ -- read more at RadicalRuss.net...

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 12:50:49 PM EST
    The military voted overwhelmingly for Bush it was clear that he was going to pull this crap, they get what they deserve.

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 01:45:19 PM EST
    shouldn't this GOP posters being headed to Iraq?

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 02:09:55 PM EST
    Radical - There was no limit before. Contracts are contracts. As your wife may explain to you. ricky1756 - I think this is the third time you have mentioned/implied sexual acts. Now tell me. Is it Cliff, or me, that you have the hots for? Both? I mean, really.

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 02:29:02 PM EST
    lol! did sarcastic really call someone 'condecending & arrogant'? and cliff actually said someone was 'being a jerk'??? you should really rename this thread to 'the pot calling the kettle black'. i mean, even ppj gets in the act :)

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#21)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 02:41:32 PM EST
    “shouldn't this GOP posters being headed to Iraq?” Now here is a great mind; such a unique insightful gem like this should humble us all. Hey Paul, next time you go out to eat I expect you’ll be back in the kitchen tossing those pots and pans.

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 03:10:27 PM EST
    kelite My monicker was given to me, accurately I might add, by one of your ilk on this blog. CA gave his monicker to himself. Giving such a monicker to himself and most, but to be fair, not all, of his posts support the nickname. Now, what is the significance of your monicker I wonder? I've certainly heard of Kelite as an abrasive or acidic floor cleaner, which seems somewhat appropriate... Anyway, as far as the current thread goes, it sounds like these military contracts were written with a whole lot of wiggle room - for the military, of course. I certainly wouldn't be happy if I was in a position to be called up, but I'm pretty sure "happiness" isn't relevant here.

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 03:18:24 PM EST
    sarcastic - i was honestly trying to be funny. sorry if i peed in your cheerios :) my moniker is a childhood nickname.

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#24)
    by pigwiggle on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 03:19:40 PM EST
    “Now, what is the significance of your monicker I wonder?” Perhaps the sister band to the Chi Lites?

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 03:19:55 PM EST
    i wasn't referring to anything sexual.What a dirty mind you have, Jim

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 03:20:58 PM EST
    Wow, you all are in nasty moods today! The idea that of calling it a backdoor draft is that the government is trying to dramatically reinterpret the rules of the contract from what the reservists signed up for. Reservists were led to believe they were signing up for 24 months of fighting max. That is how the contract had always been intrepretted. Now the gov. is trying to tell them they will have to fight indefinitely. That is not what they signed up for. Fighting that they did not sign up for...sounds akin to a draft, hence the comparison.

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 03:28:43 PM EST
    Perhaps the sister band to the Chi Lites? now that i could get into :) seriously, i wasn't trying to be nasty. i was just laughing so hard by the time i got to the bottom of the thread that i had to say something... usually our more conservative commentors are more on the offense than on the defense, it struck me as funny. i feel that the armed forces could do a much better job explaining the actual commitment to the reservists and national guard. but at the same time, it is a contractural obligation. a lot of these reservists never believed they would have to go to war at all. or if they did, it would be 'short and sweet' like desert storm. but they did sign up, they did agree to the stipulations.... i'm not saying that our military isn't in trouble, but i think the root cause of that is not this 'back door draft'.

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 03:44:34 PM EST
    kelite - Actually it was the pot asking if Ricky1756 was true lovin' us. ;-) ricky1756 - What? I am heart broken. I mean you keep hinting and hinting, and then you back away. Please, no more flirting. J.B. writes - "the government is trying to dramatically reinterpret the rules of the contract from what the reservists signed up for. " That is why you read contracts. Before you sign them.

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#29)
    by john horse on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 04:08:22 PM EST
    The question isn't whether this is a contractual obligation but whether Reservists are getting screwed. What is obvious to me is that Republicans couldn't care less about whether reservists are being treated fairly or not. I mean not one of you addressed this issue. What "support the troops" means is just another way of saying "support Bush's war." Personally, I couldn't give a d*mn if a reservist voted for Bush or Kerry, noone deserves to be treated unfairly. The other issue that Republicans avoid is Lt General Helmly's comment that the reserves are "rapidly degenerating into a broken force." According to Helmly's memo, the Reserve has reached the point of being unable to fulfill its missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and to regenerate its forces for future missions. Of course, there would be no problems with recruitment if all Republicans who support this war would sign up to fight it but why get your hands dirty when you can have others doing your dirty work for you?

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 04:11:39 PM EST
    jim, is it true that you turned your mother into homeland security because you caught her eating french fries and listening to a cat steven's cd? that's more terrorist evidence than they have on most people they locked away in cuba. they're probably torturing her by now

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 04:17:11 PM EST
    is that a 'yo mama' joke? ricky, you can do better than that... to me, the quote belows means that the changes will not affect those already enlisted, but only those who enlist after the changes are made. am i incorrect? does anyone have a link clarifying when the changes would take place and who they would affect?
    The change under consideration, the Army official said, would essentially make a reservist eligible for an unlimited number of call-ups but stipulate that no single mobilization would last more than 24 consecutive months.


    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 05:10:03 PM EST
    ricky1756 - Nah, yo mama said she'd do the guards so my mama escaped. Now, shall we leave families out of this?

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 07:14:42 PM EST
    Cliffie wrote: ca - I wonder if you'd be such a jerk to my face? I suspect not. I actually appreciate your approach most of the time. I think you may be naive, but maybe a pretty good guy in many ways. So, if our regular disagreements over policy feel like I am being a jerk to you, very sorry. But my question remains, a lot of the folks who seem to be most anxious to send the troops into battle are folks who never served in combat situations. Are you different? Do you have combat credentials? Where and when did you serve? I don't know if your statement is some kind of threat or bravado, like I would be afraid to tell you what I think, or if I think you are an armchair warrior? In day to day life, I am pretty pleasant and polite with a lot of folks who are Bush supporters. I think they are wrong, they know I think they are wrong, but we are more than civil. Now, outside of the workplace, I would prefer not to run into folks who are political reactionaries which is one of the reasons I hang out here in Talk Left on a regular basis. I am not sure why the rightwingers like to come here except for the possibility that enjoy taunting, baiting, etc. Well, I don't know. I guess we will all just have to decide for ourselves who is being a jerk given the circumstances. You follow, Cliffie?

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 06:40:22 AM EST
    Time to get the "Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry" Bumper stickers out. Two things bother me about this First, this is EXACTLY what Kerry was saying in the election and the Neo Cons said "Everything is fine, there is no need for more troops". Now, two months later apparently Kerry was right. It appears Kerry knew more about the state of our military than the Commander in Chief. Second, to those who say this is what the reserves signed up for are wrong. Every contract says the "Government can change this at anytime". But if you do not count that "clause" as what they signed up for, then what you have are a lot of broken promises. Like, getting out. Stop loss prevents that. Right now, they are not allowing Officers to resign. So, this is in fact a draft and it is involuntary servitude. A great article on "Breaking The Social Contract" is at Soldiers for Truth.

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#35)
    by soccerdad on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 11:08:46 AM EST
    There is a three part series on F company on Soldiers for the Truth that is a must read. It documents the experience of one company from training to deployment in Iraq. Read and then tell me if this admin is really supporting the troops or are their policies likely mean the end of the all volunteer force.

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 03:31:37 PM EST
    ...the changes will not affect those already enlisted, but only those who enlist after the changes are made. am i incorrect? does anyone have a link clarifying when the changes would take place and who they would affect?
    does anyone have any more info on this? is this a policy change that will affect current soldiers, or only new enlistees?

    Re: Back Door Draft Proposed (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 15, 2005 at 08:25:18 PM EST
    This is not exactly what Kerry predicted, nor is it a fulfillment of any other prediction. It is a leap in logic that skips many steps. I understand the logic of pessimism. When the RedSox were up by 7 in the 9th, Matsui hits a double and I'm immediately thinking "That's it! That's the beginning of the end! Criminy." That's pretty much what has happened here. We are not near a draft, de facto or de jure. We are not surreptitiously approaching a draft, secretly planning a draft, or considering a draft. Amazing how the more INaccurate one's predictions are on the left (Moore, Krugman, Conyers, Ehrlich, & Dean spring to mind) the more credibility one has. A fevered imagination is not proof.