Republican senator says " draft may be needed"

[faithinkarma]

Los Angeles -- Sen. Chuck Hagel, an influential moderate Republican from Nebraska, sharply criticized the Bush administration in an interview here Tuesday, saying that the war in Iraq appears to have hurt America in its battle against terrorism.

Hagel, a politician sometimes mentioned as a future presidential contender, also said the United States is going to have to consider restarting the draft to maintain its many military commitments abroad.

In a sharp critique of the leader of his own party, Hagel said he believes the occupation of Iraq by the American military was poorly planned and has spread terrorist cells more widely around the world.

"This put in motion a new geographic dispersion" of the terrorists, said Hagel, 58, in an interview before delivering a speech to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles. "It's harder to deal with them because they're not as contained. Iraq has become a training ground."

He added that although it is too soon to judge how the war in Iraq will ultimately influence the war on terror, in the short term it has created more terrorists and given them more targets -- American soldiers.

Hagel, a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, said he agrees with President Bush that the duration of the war on terror might be measured in generations and that to sustain the badly overstretched military for the struggle, a new draft may be needed.


"We are seeing huge cracks developing in our force structure," he said. "The fact is, if we're going to continue with this, we're going to have to be honest with the American people."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...MNGTS7E5RK1.DTL[

 

[GeorgeG]

I agree.

This is going to be global and will take a very long time. I do believe, however, that being at war in these times is unavoidable. Sad, indeed, but unavoidable.

 

[bsnyder]

Unfortunately, your link didn't work.

While I agree with Hagel's (and Bush's) premise that the War on Terror will probably span a generation or more, I don't agree that we'll need a draft to fight it. It's not a conventional war like the World Wars or Vietnam, requiring massive numbers of troops.

There are many arguments for why a draft would actually decrease the effectiveness of our armed forces, compared to the all-volunteer force we currently have.

But we will need many more volunteers. And we'll have to pay to pay a lot more to get them. I don't have a problem with that. Providing for the national defense is a legitimate government expense.

 

[ThreeCircles]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/30/MNGTS7E5RK1.DTL

 

[faithinkarma]

While the number of troops needed has been argued in other places, it does seem that whatever that number is, it is not being filled by volunteers. If it was, then why the stop loss policy? And why the call up of the individual ready reserve?

As popularity for the current war dwindles, it would seem logical that volunteers would also dwindle. That leaves only one option.

And why have twin bills been introduced " to receive a National Draft to include both men and woman between the ages of 18-26"?

And at the same time the Army has announced plans ''to utilize the Internal Revenue Service to track down thousands of soldiers."

Sure sounds like a plan to reinstate of the draft is a definite possibility on someone's agenda.