Military Draft System To Be Tested
Officials Say Selective Service Apparatus Is Being Checked, Not Implemented
-
Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson in May. (AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson)
-
Interactive Battle For Iraq The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
-
Interactive Iraq Study Group Report Bipartisan commission warns that situation is "grave and deteriorating."
-
Interactive Military 101 Basic training to learn all about America's fighting force.
The agency is planning a comprehensive test — not run since 1998 — of its military draft systems, a Selective Service official said. The test itself would not likely occur until 2009.
At the direction of the White House, reports CBS News correspondent Mark Knoller, Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson is making it clear he is not advocating the reinstatement of a military draft. He told a news conference that society would benefit from a return to the draft, but a few hours later, after the White House disavowed the remark, Nicholson issued a statement in line with administration policy. He said he strongly supports the all-volunteer military and does not support returning to a draft.
President Bush has repeatedly stated that the all-volunteer army would remain all-volunteer.
"We're kind of like a fire extinguisher. We sit on a shelf," Scott Campbell, the service's director for operations and chief information officer, said. "Unless the president and Congress get together and say, 'Turn the machine on' ... we're still on the shelf."
The administration has for years forcefully opposed bringing back the draft, and the White House said Thursday that policy has not changed and no proposal to reinstate the draft is being considered.
The "readiness exercise" would test the system that randomly chooses draftees by birth date and its network of appeal boards that decide how to deal with conscientious objectors and others who want to delay reporting for duty, Campbell said.
The Selective Service will start planning for the 2009 tests next June or July, although budget cuts could force the agency to cancel them, Campbell said.
President Bush said this week he is considering sending more troops to Iraq and has asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to look into adding more troops to the nearly 1.4 million uniformed personnel on active duty.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, increasing the Army by 40,000 troops would cost as much as $2.6 billion the first year and $4 billion after that. Military officials have said the Army and Marine Corps want to add as many as 35,000 more troops.
Recruiting new forces and retaining current troops is more complicated because of the unpopular war in Iraq. In recent years, the Army has accepted recruits with lower aptitude test scores.
In remarks to reporters, Nicholson recalled his own experience as a company commander in an infantry unit that brought together soldiers of different backgrounds and education levels "in the common purpose of serving."
Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, plans to introduce a bill next year to reinstate the draft. House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has said such a proposal would not be high on the Democratic-led Congress' priority list.
Hearst Newspapers first reported the planned test for a story sent to its subscribers for weekend use.
The military drafted people during the Civil War and both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. Reincorporated in 1980, the Selective Service System maintains a registry of 18-year-old men, but call-ups have not occurred since the Vietnam War.
©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The secrets of tennis legend 




- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 9
- next
See all 161 CommentsPUTRAJAYA, Malaysia -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel.
http://www.washingtonpost.com
/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR200
6080300629.html
Posted by robert_in_d at 01:57 PM : Dec 24, 2006
I'd call that playing to his base, just like any good politician would do. Of course he's going to bellow and threaten, it's what the people who voted for him want him to do. He was elected you know, he's not a dictator. Bush says cr*ap all the time too. Sure he'd like to see Israel destroyed someday, but for now it's much to valuable to him as a standing enemy. Without them he'd have a harder time staying in power. After all, just like Bush does, he needs someone else to blame for everything. With him it's Israel, with Bush it's the "evildoers". Different names, same bullsh*it.
I'm not saying the Iranian President DOESN'T want to destroy Israel, but again, unless he becomes psychotic, he would never use nuclear weapson(s) to do so.
Oh really? What would you call this then:
PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300629.html
Bush will need more troops for his war against Iran, but he'll do it through furthering the privatization of the military. There are already 30,000 mercenaries from private 'security' companies in Iraq paid for by the US taxpayer and the Busho-fascists have already expanded the 'poverty draft' to Central America. Mercenaries have been protecting the civilian and military brass in Iraq since the get-go. Bedsides diverting even more of the US Treasury to Bush, his family, and the other war-profiteers, mercenaries have the added advantage of having no legal responsibility for the atrocities they commit.
Bush will need more troops for his war against Iran, but he'll do it through furthering the privatization of the military. There are already 30,000 mercenaries from private 'security' companies in Iraq paid for by the US taxpayer and the Busho-fascists have already expanded the 'poverty draft' to Central America. Mercenaries have been protecting the civilian and military brass in Iraq since the get-go. Bedsides diverting even more of the US Treasury to Bush, his family, and the other war-profiteers, mercenaries have the added advantage of having no legal responsibility for the atrocities they commit.
Bush will need more troops for his war against Iran, but he'll do it through furthering the privatization of the military. There are already 30,000 mercenaries from private 'security' companies in Iraq paid for by the US taxpayer and the Busho-fascists have already expanded the 'poverty draft' to Central America. Mercenaries have been protecting the civilian and military brass in Iraq since the get-go. Bedsides diverting even more of the US Treasury to Bush, his family, and the other war-profiteers, mercenaries have the added advantage of having no legal responsibility for the atrocities they commit.
Posted by Descartes13 at 01:03 AM : Dec 24, 2006
I suspect that you and I think the same.
Now let me state what would happen in a worst-case scenario if we were ever hit with just a single 20-megaton nuclear-tipped missile.
Scientists have stated that such a bomb, if detonated at the right height over St. Louis, Missouri, would generate an extremely strong electromagnetic "pulse" that would wipe out every last microprocessor in this entire country, along with any data stored on any magnetic media.
In other words, all the pc's, laptops, mainframes, hard drives, etc., etc., would be irreperably damaged.
Our country, in the space of a heartbeat, would cease to function.
Although it can be argued that the Bushies have managed to prevent our being hit with another terror-attack thus far, the fact is, by constantly engaging in behaviors and rhetoric that gets the muslims riled up, he's just INCREASING the chances of our getting hit!
And to make matter so much worse, Bush is also strongly considering using nuclear-tipped bunker-busting missiles on Iran.
Imagine how THAT'S going to make us look in the eyes of the world; particulary in the eyes of muslims world-wide : we will have attacked 3 different muslim countries, and we will be the only country to have ever have used nuclear missiles in anger -- not once, but twice!
The Prez simply tells them, "If you want to get the BOMB, fine. We won't stand in your way.
However, if a nuclear device is EVER detonated in the USA or Israel, whether it is fired in, or smuggled in then detonated, we won't wait to verify that it was indeed, from your country.
We will instantly retaliate by sending an ICBM to each and every city in Iran with a population of 7500 or more.
In short, if we or Israel ever gets hit, there won't BE an Iran afterwards!"
Posted by Descartes13
I agree 100% with the above section of your comment! Only I was thinking the target city should be Mecca, then Medina. That will certainly make them think
I suppose it all boils down to...
Will my constitutional rights be violated?
What constitutional rights ?
Posted by missAmerica4 at 07:09 AM : Dec 23, 2006
They've been disappearing at a steady pace since Bush and the neocons took power. If they are not kicked out they will finish what they have started in destroying our rights and take power permanently.
Have the US Selective Service System send every daft age person in the USA an official letter stating that it is their time to be eligible to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I guarantee that the citizens of the USA will quickly wake up, take to the streets, and everywhere else %u2013 24/7 demanding an immediate end to the current hopeless course.
Obviously, most citizens of the USA will not act in a manner that is consistent with the critical severity of this matter until it is consciously acknowledged, inescapably, to be a personal matter of top priority concern.
Clearly most people are not giving any more than well-meaning to pathetic lip service in discussions, arguments, verbal expressions of disagreement and sadness, or agreement with %u201Cstaying the course%u201D %u2013 as long they are not required to be in the Front Line fighting, and trying to survive.
1. Impeachment is "off the table"
2. Cutting off funding for the war is "off the table"
You would think with all these polls out showing how much americans are fed up with this horrible folly of a war, that the democrats would "get it," and get their butts in gear!
What I find especially exasperating is that the democrats are saying that they don't want to cut off funding, because they don't want to make it look like they're not supporting our troops.
Helllllooooo??? That funding is going to Halliburton and all the other war profiteers!
Dennis Kucinich is the only presidential contender (democrat) who seems to actually NOT be hard of hearing; other than that, we americans are just getting ignored, and I'm sooo sick of it!
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 9
- next
See all 161 Comments