I hope that he succeeds this time. It will sure ease our military manpower deficit.
I retired from the Naval Reserve almost seven years ago after 21 1/2 years of service. I received a recruiting flyer in the mail last week from the Army.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/11/19/rep_rangel_will_seek_to_reinstate_draft?mode=PF (//%22http://%22)
Rep. Rangel will seek to reinstate draft
By John Heilprin, Associated Press Writer | November 19, 2006
WASHINGTON --Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 if the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has his way.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars and to bolster U.S. troop levels insufficient to cover potential future action in Iran, North Korea and Iraq.
"There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way," Rangel said.
Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose a measure early next year.
In 2003, he proposed a measure covering people age 18 to 26. This year, he offered a plan to mandate military service for men and women between age 18 and 42; it went nowhere in the Republican-led Congress.
Democrats will control the House and Senate come January because of their victories in the Nov. 7 election.
At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, "I don't see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft," said Rangel, who also proposed a draft in January 2003, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Standby Reserve, said he agreed that the U.S. does not have enough people in the military.
"I think we can do this with an all-voluntary service, all-voluntary Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. And if we can't, then we'll look for some other option," said Graham, who is assigned as a reserve judge to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.
Rangel, the next chairman of the House tax-writing committee, said he worried the military was being strained by its overseas commitments.
"If we're going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can't do that without a draft," Rangel said.
He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, "young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it's our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals," with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.
Graham said he believes the all-voluntary military "represents the country pretty well in terms of ethnic makeup, economic background."
Repeated polls have shown that about seven in 10 Americans oppose reinstatement of the draft and officials say they do not expect to restart conscription.
Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told Congress in June 2005 that "there isn't a chance in the world that the draft will be brought back."
Yet the prospect of the long global fight against terrorism and the continuing U.S. commitment to stabilizing Iraq have kept the idea in the public's mind.
The military drafted conscripts during the Civil War, both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. An agency independent of the Defense Department, the Selective Service System trains, keeps an updated registry of men age 18-25 -- now about 16 million -- from which to supply untrained draftees that would supplement the professional all-volunteer armed forces.
Rangel and Graham appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS.
------
I surely hope you are joking in supporting this.
Go Democrat Go.
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
I surely hope you are joking in supporting this.
Why would I be? We are after all engaged in a global war on terror, are we not? It is time to put the nation on a real war footing. Part of doing so is to reinstitute the military draft. I as said above, it will erase our military manpower deficit, an issue that is going to have to be addressed preferably sooner than later.
Do you have a problem with supporting the military and/or its mission?
McCain: We need more troops.
Kissinger: "If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible."
___________________________________
Past War Games Foresaw Iraq Problems
Associated Press | November 06, 2006
WASHINGTON - The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might ensue.
In its "Desert Crossing" games, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence officials assumed the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.
The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by the George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.
"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."
There are currently about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak of about 160,000 in January.
A spokeswoman for U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.
The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:
-"A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."
-"Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic - especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."
-"Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."
-"The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."
-"Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."
-"A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."
_________________________________
InsideDefense.com NewsStand | Elaine M. Grossman | November 10, 2006
A small group of officers assembled by Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to draw up alternatives to the U.S. military strategy in Iraq is expected to conclude its work in December, according to defense sources. Some observers anticipate the recommendations will call for a dramatic change of course in the Persian Gulf nation and perhaps in the war on terrorism more broadly.
The post-Election Day resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld may be a strong indication that a sharp turn in Iraq strategy is in the offing, according to experts.
The Joint Staff review is being carried out in extraordinary secrecy. A spokesman for Pace said this week the group has no formal name but its role is "to assess what's working and what's not working" in Iraq and beyond. The spokesman did not respond by press time (Nov. 8) to a number of follow-up questions posed by a reporter.
Pace's exploration of Iraq alternatives comes as a congressionally mandated study group, co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), is conducting an independent review of the strategy to combat the insurgency and sectarian violence in the war-torn nation.
Some experts speculate the Marine Corps general decided to convene his own panel to develop new alternatives for Iraq in case the Baker-Hamilton "Iraq Study Group" offers recommendations the military or the Bush administration find unacceptable.
President Bush's selection of former CIA chief Robert Gates -- a member of the Baker-Hamilton panel -- to replace Rumsfeld could have interesting repercussions if Pace's findings differ significantly from those of the Iraq Study Group.
But, following a midterm election in which Democrats retook control of the House and possibly the Senate, Bush signaled he is ready for at least some amount of change.
"Stay the course means let's get the job done, but it doesn't mean, you know, staying stuck on a strategy or tactics that may not be working," Bush said yesterday (Nov. 8) in announcing Rumsfeld's departure. "I'm assessing, as well, all the time [the question of] do we have the right people in the right place, the right strategy. As you know, we're constantly changing tactics, and that requires constant assessment."
Bush held a second press conference later in the afternoon to introduce Gates as his nominee for defense secretary.
"As part of [the Baker-Hamilton] commission, [Gates] has traveled to Iraq and met with the country's leaders and our military commanders on the ground," Bush said. "He will provide the department with a fresh perspective and new ideas on how America can achieve our goals in Iraq."
For his part, Pace asked each of the services in September to temporarily detail to his review group their best mid-level strategists with experience in Iraq, defense sources tell Inside the Pentagon.
Participants include Army Col. H.R. McMaster, who until earlier this year commanded a cavalry regiment that pacified the Iraqi insurgent stronghold of Tall Afar, though violence has since returned to that town. Another team member is Army Col. Peter Mansoor, who directs an Army-Marine Corps counterinsurgency school at Fort Leavenworth, KS. The Marine Corps reportedly has sent Col. Thomas Greenwood, director of the Marine Command and Staff College, and the other services are represented on the study team, as well.
The Joint Staff strategy review kicked off in late September and was originally slated to last 60 days, though it now appears work will continue into December, according to officials familiar with the group who are not authorized to speak for it.
Since the review began, the security situation in Iraq has further deteriorated. At least 105 U.S. personnel were killed in October, the fourth-deadliest month since the war began in 2003. By the end of last month, 2,818 U.S. troops had died in combat in Iraq.
Pace is trying to determine why Iraqi security has not improved despite the addition of more than 300,000 Iraqi security forces over the past two years, Time reported late last month.
Among the top ranks of the military, there is a growing consensus that more U.S. troops are needed to crush the insurgency and cultivate the support of an Iraqi public that is not yet convinced American forces will win, a number of well placed sources say.
But that view is increasingly out of step with lawmakers and the American public, where pressure is mounting to establish "benchmarks" for the withdrawal of some or all U.S. troops.
Back at the Pentagon, Pace's group of colonels is taking a wide-ranging approach, examining holistically the strategies for securing Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as fighting the broader war on terror, defense sources tell ITP.
The results may prove surprising, some say. The Pace group is headed toward making some bold and unconventional recommendations -- ones that may demand consensus across party lines as Bush struggles to work with newly empowered Democrats in Congress. The president and a variety of lawmakers have staked out opposing positions on troop levels for Iraq and what their objectives and strategy should be.
If the various political factions dig in their heels on their respective concepts for Iraq, they might yet all agree on one thing: that the Pace recommendations are politically naive and dead on arrival, some officials warned.
Another risk Pace faces is that the new defense secretary or members of Congress will cherry-pick only some of his recommendations for implementation, potentially leaving the military with a watered-down version of a new strategy that would only work if carried out in toto, sources said.
Meanwhile, a spokeswoman for Pace downplayed the group's role in assessing new options for Iraq.
"Working groups are convened for a variety of issues and the prosecution of GWOT [the global war on terror] is one of those issues," according to Army Reserve Lt. Col. Diane Battaglia, a Joint Staff spokeswoman. "The former commanders may meet with this working group and discuss their experiences and insights as it pertains to the GWOT, but this is not an 'Iraq Strategy' specific group."
quote:
Originally posted by Route66Kid
Why would I be? We are after all engaged in a global war on terror, are we not? It is time to put the nation on a real war footing. Part of doing so is to reinstitute the military draft. I as said above, it will erase our military manpower deficit, an issue that is going to have to be addressed preferably sooner than later.
Do you have a problem with supporting the military and/or its mission?
Or, it will cause some of our best and brightest to flee the country. [:O]
Or it will cause our military effectiveness to go way down because people don't want to be there.
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
I surely hope you are joking in supporting this.
Freedom isn't free, and these colors don't bleed. Are you proposing to let the terrorists win? America: love it or leave it.
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
America: love it or leave change it for the better.
There, fixed that for you.
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
America: love it or leave change it for the better.
There, fixed that for you.
What the ?!?! Don't you know America's jingoes are sacrosanct?!?!?
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
America: love it or leave change it for the better.
There, fixed that for you.
If I had a smiley that was clapping and cherring wildly, I would post it in response to this post.
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
What the ?!?! Don't you know America's jingoes are sacrosanct?!?!?
[:P]
quote:
Or, it will cause some of our best and brightest to flee the country. [:O]
What if it does?
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Or it will cause our military effectiveness to go way down because people don't want to be there.
I doubt it would cause any significant drop in effectiveness because we already have people serving who don't want to be there, who have had their enlistments involuntarily extended, who have been called back from the IRR, who have had their deployments involuntarily extended, and who are going on their third tours in Iraq:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061118/D8LFAIP00.html (//%22http://%22)
Conscription would give the Army a better cross section of American society and encourage enlistment in the other services.
If there is ever a military emergency necessitating a sustained commitment of force, we may have no choice but to reinstitute the draft.
For any unsuspecting health care professionals, the Medical Draft has always been in standby mode:
http://www.sss.gov/FSmedical.htm (//%22http://%22)
MEDICAL DRAFT IN STANDBY MODE
The Health Care Personnel Delivery System (HCPDS) is a standby plan developed for the Selective Service System at the request of Congress. If needed it would be used to draft health care personnel in a crisis. It is designed to be implemented in connection with a national mobilization in an emergency, and then only if Congress and the President approve the plan and pass and sign legislation to enact it. No portion of the plan is designed for implementation in peacetime. If implemented, HCPDS would:
Provide a fair and equitable draft of doctors, nurses, medical technicians and those with certain other health care skills if, in some future emergency, the military's existing medical capability proved insufficient and there is a shortage of volunteers.
Include women, unless directed otherwise by Congress and the President.
Draft a very small percentage of America's health care providers into military service. Impact on the availability of civilian health care would be minimal. Those health-care workers whose absence would seriously hurt their communities would be deferred on the basis of community essentiality.
Begin a mass registration of male and female health care workers between the ages of 20 and 45. They would register at local post offices. HCPDS would provide medical personnel from a pool of 3.4 million doctors, nurses, specialists and allied health professionals in more than 60 fields of medicine.
Require minimal training for HCPDS draftees, because they are already skilled personnel.
I say reinstitute the draft; that may be the quickest way to end U.S. involvement in this Iraq war travesty. I can just see the massive street marches and protests now. Shades of 1968-72. The only other hope is that the new Congress will cut off funding and end this debacle like they did with Vietnam.
Our all-voluntary armed forces are mostly made up of people from the middle and lower economic classes, a simple fact. When the children of the rich and the corporate elite in this country have an equal chance of being sent to be killed in places like Iraq, then our executive branch of government may think twice about invading other sovereign countries.
He voted "no" and encouraged his fellow Democrats to vote "no" as well on the proposed bill prior to the 2004 election.
http://www.hillnews.com/news/100604/rangel.aspx
Also worth noting is his idea of conscription would include either two years of military service or two years of "national service". I think it's a pretty open-ended deal. It still would allow for those of priveledge to duck out of military service and choose "national service".
My view is it sounds like another government MWP that will cost taxpayers a ton of money by requiring every 18 to 42 year-old to serve two years on the government payroll. I don't think it's going anywhere though. Pelosi has already said she doesn't support it and both Sens Clinton and Schumer have said it wouldn't garner 10 votes in the Senate.
quote:
Originally posted by PRH
I'm guessing Rangel has proposed this bill to draft into the war the sons of the "upper classes", who are mostly the children of Republican families.
When sons of wealthy men are risking death, the popularity of the war may wane with our flag-waving Republican friends.
It's true in theory that a draft would be more equitable as far as having a realistic distribution across socio-economic levels. But you don't have to look any farther than our current Commander-in-Chief to realize that wealthy people will always be able to get around serving.
quote:
I'm guessing Rangel has proposed this bill to draft into the war the sons of the "upper classes", who are mostly the children of Republican families.
When sons of wealthy men are risking death, the popularity of the war may wane with our flag-waving Republican friends.
You do realize that the army is about 70% Repulbican dont you? If there was a draft, there would be a lower percentage number of Republicans in the army.
They may be 70 percent Republican, but the percentage is smaller for those supporting Bush.
I've run into a lot of former and current servicemen and -women who are really disgusted with the way their commander-in-chief is doing his job in Iraq and in general.
quote:
Originally posted by PRH
I'm guessing Rangel has proposed this bill to draft into the war the sons of the "upper classes", who are mostly the children of Republican families.
When sons of wealthy men are risking death, the popularity of the war may wane with our flag-waving Republican friends.
There are quite a few wealthy Democrats in this country as well, many of them in the Senate and HOR.
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
You do realize that the army is about 70% Repulbican dont you? If there was a draft, there would be a lower percentage number of Republicans in the army.
I call bullsh*t! Let's see your source. Maybe it was just a stupid but honest mistake on your part. Maybe you meant to say that 70% of the Army voted for Bush in 2004. I can understand that, to someone of your mentality, that means that they HAD to be Republicans. After all, in your world, no Republican would ever vote for anyone but a Republican. Not all Republicans are brain dead. Some actually do their OWN thinking.
The military always tends to vote Republican for two reasons. One is that Republican presidents tend to push better pay raises for the military. The other is that Republican candidates usually wrap themselves in the flag. That doesn't mean they're more patriotic, it just means they make a bigger show of it.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
They may be 70 percent Republican, but the percentage is smaller for those supporting Bush.
I've run into a lot of former and current servicemen and -women who are really disgusted with the way their commander-in-chief is doing his job in Iraq and in general.
I haven't seen a recent poll but I understand that Bush's support from members of the military has dropped dramatically in the last couple of years.
I have a GREAT idea. Go scoop up all the illegal scum and tell them "you want to be part of our wonderful country? Then you are going to serve for a few years and THEN we will make you citizens" That would solve the problem of needing a draft, as thousands of willing volunteers stream across our border everyday. We just go get them and load them up in a truck like they are so used to doing at home depot anyways and take them right down to boot camp.
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
You do realize that the army is about 70% Repulbican dont you? If there was a draft, there would be a lower percentage number of Republicans in the army.
I call bullsh*t! Let's see your source. Maybe it was just a stupid but honest mistake on your part. Maybe you meant to say that 70% of the Army voted for Bush in 2004. I can understand that, to someone of your mentality, that means that they HAD to be Republicans. After all, in your world, no Republican would ever vote for anyone but a Republican. Not all Republicans are brain dead. Some actually do their OWN thinking.
The military always tends to vote Republican for two reasons. One is that Republican presidents tend to push better pay raises for the military. The other is that Republican candidates usually wrap themselves in the flag. That doesn't mean they're more patriotic, it just means they make a bigger show of it.
Most of the people I served with in the Navy did not seem the least bit interested in politics most of the time. I will say that at election time most voted Republican and 70% or greater is a reasonable estimate of the number who did. Speaking just for myself, I was a registered Independent my entire military career, enlisted and commissioned. Even still I voted for GOP candidates most of the time. I voted for Reagan twice, Bush 41 once, and for Bob Dole. Your last paragraph is very true.
It took the incompetent leadership of George W. Bush and that of his PNAC ideologs to knock me off the fence in '04 and change my voter registration from Independent to Democratic. As critical as I was in private of the leadership of Bill Clinton the last six years I was on active duty, he at least had the presence of mind to abide by the counsel of his advisors and govern from the middle, doing what was ultimately in the nation's best interest and not his own or that of his donors.
I don't think Bush 43 got 70% of the military vote in '04.
Draft beer, not children.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
I have a GREAT idea. Go scoop up all the illegal scum and tell them "you want to be part of our wonderful country? Then you are going to serve for a few years and THEN we will make you citizens" That would solve the problem of needing a draft, as thousands of willing volunteers stream across our border everyday. We just go get them and load them up in a truck like they are so used to doing at home depot anyways and take them right down to boot camp.
A lot more of this goes on than what you might think, and excuse me but I'd advise you against using the term "scum" to describe these young men and women who have volunteered to serve this nation. There are many fine foreign-born non-US citizens who have affirmed an oath to "SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND DEFEND IT AGAINST ALL ENEMIES BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC."
If I had not served in the United States Navy there were times I could swear it could have been the United States Maritime Foreign Legion. I have personally served with sailors and marines and even a few officers who were from places like:
Republic of the Phillipines (several)
Canada (several)
Mexico (several)
Puerto Rico (several)
Australia
New Zealand
Dominican Republic
Jamaica
Haiti
Belize
Costa Rica
Panama
Nicaragua
Cuba
Peru
Argentina
Great Britain
Ireland
France
Germany
Greece
Israel
Iran
Vietnam
Sri Lanka
India
Guam
Palau/Micronesia
China
Korea
Japan
South Africa
Zaire/Congo
As you can see, much of the world is represented in the branch in which I served.
And DoD does help those non-citizens who serve become naturalized US citizens:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2003/n01162003_200301163.html (//%22http://%22)
DoD Helps Noncitizen Service Members Become Full-Fledged Americans
By Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample, USA
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Jan. 16, 2003 -- In a special ceremony on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Constellation last August, 170 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines swore an oath of allegiance to the United States. The same month in Kandahar, Afghanistan, four dozen more service members did the same. All became American citizens.
Those are scenes that have been repeated throughout the services in the past year. Hundreds of non-U.S. citizen service personnel have taken advantage of Executive Order 329 and are becoming full-fledged Americans.
Signed by President Bush last July, the order expedites the citizenship process for those serving in the war on terrorism. Since then, the Defense Department has been following up on that executive order by assisting noncitizen members with everything from filing Immigration and Naturalization Service forms to following up on their applications. Bush's order affects an estimated 18,000 men and women in uniform, officials said.
Prior to the executive order, applicants had to have three years of qualifying military service. This was also a special exception -- civilian applicants have to wait five years.
According to Brad Loo, DoD deputy director, Office of Officer and Enlisted Personnel Management, a service member now needs only one day of honorable active-duty federal service on or since Sept. 11, 2001, to qualify for citizenship under the military-facilitated program.
To apply, noncitizen service members must file INS Form N-426, which verifies dates of military and honorable service; and INS Form G-325B, which requires biographical information, fingerprinting and a photograph.
Loo said that under a 2000 DoD-INS memorandum of understanding, the two agencies work together to assist noncitizen military members with their citizenship process.
That's good news, Navy personnel clerk Petty Officer 2nd Class Carlos Granthon will attest. A native of Peru, he became a naturalized U.S. citizen five years ago. The process was long, tedious work, he said, and he had to do it alone because no one aboard his ship knew how.
"The wait was the hard part, not knowing if they (INS) received your information at all, waiting for an answer, not knowing who or where to call. There was no communication," Granthon said. "If there is a better system, then this is good."
Loo feels that recent changes in the way the DoD and INS handle noncitizenship applications will be good for service members. DoD now provides the "necessary interface" between the services and the immigration service, he noted.
"Each service has established assistance centers and offices that have trained personnel assigned to help qualified service members with the citizenship application process," he said. "This will not only ensure a quality control check is done on the application, but also, it ensures the application gets sent to the INS facility designated to process military applications."
The INS has established a central office in Lincoln, Neb., to process military members' applications and dedicated a point of contact to discuss issues regarding specific applications with a single representative from each of the services.
Chris Rydelek, head of the legal assistance branch at Marine Corps Headquarters here, calls the assistance "extremely successful." The DoD-INS partnership has cut application processing time from two years down to about six months, he estimated.
"I would say this represents a substantial improvement, a fresh approach," Rydelek said. "In the past it was a disjointed process at best." He said applications were often incomplete and were sent back and forth between various government offices.
"Now DoD provides the oversight to ensure the INS gets a complete application along with all the proper documentation needed and all of this information is sent to a central location," he said.
Loo said the president's action and Defense Department's initiative not only serve noncitizen service members, but also recognize their contributions to the military and the nation.
"Noncitizen soldiers, especially during a time of conflict or war, have demonstrated a willingness to defend this country, with their lives if need be," Loo explained. "Congress by law and the president by his executive order have recognized that these people have earned a special consideration of their requests for citizenship."
He also noted that service members who fail to renew their permanent resident alien card, or who lose permanent resident status for some reason, will not be punished under INS rules. "The president's executive order forgives this error," Loo said.
He said DoD benefits from noncitizen service members because many speak a native language other than English and constitute a source of linguists who will not require extensive language training.
"The sooner they become citizens, the sooner the military can use these linguists, particularly in specialties requiring a security clearance, if they are otherwise qualified for a clearance, " he said.
The Defense Department has no formal measure of the program's success, but the number of applications has increased, and this is a clear indication that the word has gotten out," Loo said.
He said the services have Web sites that detail the citizenship application process. For more information and guidance, visit the following sites:
Army: secure, https://www.perscomonline.army.mil/tagd; click "C" in the search index for "Citizenship."
Navy/Marine Corps: http://www.jag.navy.mil/html/OJAGLegal%20AssistHome.htm; click "Immigration" button at the top of the screen for table of contents.
Air Force: http://www.afpc.randolph.af.mil/mpf; click "Immigration and Naturalization Service" in main window.
quote:
Originally posted by Route66Kid
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
I have a GREAT idea. Go scoop up all the illegal scum and tell them "you want to be part of our wonderful country? Then you are going to serve for a few years and THEN we will make you citizens" That would solve the problem of needing a draft, as thousands of willing volunteers stream across our border everyday. We just go get them and load them up in a truck like they are so used to doing at home depot anyways and take them right down to boot camp.
A lot more of this goes on than what you might think, and excuse me but I'd advise you against using the term "scum" to describe these young men and women who have volunteered to serve this nation. There are many fine foreign-born non-US citizens who have affirmed an oath to "SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND DEFEND IT AGAINST ALL ENEMIES BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC."
In all fairness Inteller is not calling the fighting men and women in the US army/ navy of any citizenship scum. He is calling illegal immigrants scum.
I'll disagree with the assertion that illegal immigrants are scum, but it is untrue that he said anyone else is.
There is a tradition of using ethnic groups as seperate fighting units with specific MOS'. Seems like it would be an easy deal to create some fighting force for deployment composed of undocumented migrants as a path to citizenship.
Saaaaaayyyyy, did not Rangel vote against his own bill to reinstate the draft?
That was back in 2003 when he tried this trick before.
The 2006 version of Rangel's bill is not going anywhere. Speaker Pelosi won't allow him the chance to debate this in January 2007. He will also be Chair of the House Ways and Means committee and he will have his hands full.
He doesn't really want to pass the draft. He just wants to debate the draft. The recruiting now takes place mostly in poor neighborhoods and rural areas and he wants America to debate what we are doing.
The republicans have been framing the issues for a long time and now the democrats have a chance to discuss things on their terms.
Whether it is the war, health care, crime or any other big issue, how we talk about it is going to be changing.