portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article coverage united states

government | imperialism & war | political theory

Leading Neo-Con Think Tank Calls For The Draft

The alert has been sounded - the earth has quaked - expect a tsunami.
The Project For The New American Century (PNAC) has issued an open letter to Congress demanding an immediate increase in US troops that can only be met by conscription, aka the draft.

The PNAC is the architect of the neo-conservative government. It is the grand puppet master of the Bush/Cheney government.

It is highly recommended that every person, male and female, under age 35 (some skills have no practical age limit), consider how they will respond to a draft order and get prepared NOW. Most options are very difficult on an ad hoc basis. Planning and preparation is crucial.

---

What is PNAC?

"Project for the New American Century is a neo-conservative think-tank that promotes an ideology of total U.S. world domination through the use of force. The group embraces and disseminates an ideology of faith in force, U.S. supremacy, and rejection of the rule of law in international affairs.

The group's core ideas are expressed in a September 2000 report produced for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and Lewis Libby entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century. The Sunday Herald referred to the report as a "blueprint for U.S. world domination."

 http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/neo-conservatism/pnac.html

---

PNAC's open letter: (  http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm)

Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces
January 28, 2005


Dear Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and Representative Pelosi:

The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges.

So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years.

There is abundant evidence that the demands of the ongoing missions in the greater Middle East, along with our continuing defense and alliance commitments elsewhere in the world, are close to exhausting current U.S. ground forces. For example, just late last month, Lieutenant General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, reported that "overuse" in Iraq and Afghanistan could be leading to a "broken force." Yet after almost two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan, it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice's term, a "generational commitment." The only way to fulfill the military aspect of this commitment is by increasing the size of the force available to our civilian leadership.

The administration has been reluctant to adapt to this new reality. We understand the dangers of continued federal deficits, and the fiscal difficulty of increasing the number of troops. But the defense of the United States is the first priority of the government. This nation can afford a robust defense posture along with a strong fiscal posture. And we can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed for transformation of the military.

In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any time during the Cold War. We do not propose returning to a Cold War-size or shape force structure. We do insist that we act responsibly to create the military we need to fight the war on terror and fulfill our other responsibilities around the world.

The men and women of our military have performed magnificently over the last few years. We are more proud of them than we can say. But many of them would be the first to say that the armed forces are too small. And we would say that surely we should be doing more to honor the contract between America and those who serve her in war. Reserves were meant to be reserves, not regulars. Our regulars and reserves are not only proving themselves as warriors, but as humanitarians and builders of emerging democracies. Our armed forces, active and reserve, are once again proving their value to the nation. We can honor their sacrifices by giving them the manpower and the materiel they need.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the duty to raise and support the military forces of the United States in the hands of the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act. You will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success in carrying out our foreign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also hopeful, world.


Respectfully,

Peter Beinart
Jeffrey Bergner
Daniel Blumenthal
Max Boot
Eliot Cohen
Ivo H. Daalder
Thomas Donnelly
Michele Flournoy
Frank F. Gaffney, Jr.
Reuel Marc Gerecht
Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson (USAF, retired)
Bruce P. Jackson
Frederick Kagan
Robert Kagan
Craig Kennedy
Paul Kennedy
Col. Robert Killebrew (USA, retired)
William Kristol
Will Marshall
Clifford May
Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, retired)
Daniel McKivergan
Joshua Muravchik
Steven J. Nider
Michael O'Hanlon
Mackubin Thomas Owens
Ralph Peters
Danielle Pletka
Stephen P. Rosen
Major Gen. Robert H. Scales (USA, retired)
Randy Scheunemann
Gary Schmitt
Walter Slocombe
James B. Steinberg

add a comment on this article

Related article in Rolling Stone 31.Jan.2005 13:19

Mother

The Return of the Draft

With the army desperate for recruits, should college students be packing their bags for Canada?

By TIM DICKINSON

Uncle Sam wants you. He needs you. He'll bribe you to sign up. He'll strong-arm you to re-enlist. And if that's not enough, he's got a plan to draft you.

In the three decades since the Vietnam War, the "all-volunteer Army" has become a bedrock principle of the American military. "It's a magnificent force," Vice President Dick Cheney declared during the election campaign last fall, "because those serving are ones who signed up to serve." But with the Army and Marines perilously overextended by the war in Iraq, that volunteer foundation is starting to crack. The "weekend warriors" of the Army Reserve and the National Guard now make up almost half the fighting force on the front lines, and young officers in the Reserve are retiring in droves. The Pentagon, which can barely attract enough recruits to maintain current troop levels, has involuntarily extended the enlistments of as many as 100,000 soldiers. Desperate for troops, the Army has lowered its standards to let in twenty-five percent more high school dropouts, and the Marines are now offering as much as $30,000 to anyone who re-enlists. To understand the scope of the crisis, consider this: The United States is pouring nearly as much money into incentives for new recruits -- almost $300 million -- as it is into international tsunami relief.


The rest of this article is here:  http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6862691

Don't Think So 31.Jan.2005 13:50

Picard

THere's no call for a "draft" in the PNAC's letter. The NeoCons only want a combined increase in army and Marine manpower amounting to 25,000 a year over the next few years. But with recruitments way down, for obvious reasons, Bush may have to start up the draft just to keep pace with the attrition from retirements and casualties.

just desserts 31.Jan.2005 14:30

greg snyder

Does your idea of the American dream include dominating the world militarily for the rest of eternity, even if it were possible? The rich white men who own American business and who cook up such ideas would never fight or allow their loved ones to fight. But they would sacrifice the lives of everyday American men and women in their prime to do such a thing. The Bush administration has the American military mired in Afganistan and Iraq. There is no end in sight to these conflicts which are only getting worse. For truth on the matter, unfortunately, one cannot depend on the American media which is full of lies and distortions, bolstering the party line. There is no opposition. The vote in Iraq doesn't mean anything because it doesn't guarantee peace and stability there. In fact, I'm sure that the American government, given its penchant for being supportive of puppet regimes would welcome continued instability in Iraq. That way there won't be any problems with the flow of oil from Iraq. Oh, but I forgot, Bush said "this war is not about oil." According to Bush, it is a war on terror. Well, where is Osama? Why didn't Bush get him when he had a chance? And he did have a good chance. Has Bush ever, even once, told a single truth? I don't think so. And, one day, what if Iraq has become a state more alligned with Iran and is extremely hostile to America. I mean, even more so than it is now. What then? At that point, I'm sure Bush and Cheney and all the other fools who want to push the idea of world domination and the idea of a glorious American empire would think nothing of throwing around nuclear weapons. In fact, I'm sure that they would look at it as a perfect opportunity to use such weapons.

Americans do have a choice in the matter. Are they going to allow a group of rich white men to put their lives, their futures on the auction block? Americans can oppose this kind of insanity. Personally, my idea of the American dream doesn't include dominating the world for a small clique of rich white men. Why should I be loyal to them when what I want is a better life for myself and for everyone else? This group is violently opposed to the general principle that the quality of life for people should be improved. I'm not sure why. So why should any of us be supportive of them and their ideas? They DO NOT know what's best. They only think they know what's best for them and their interests but they are wrong about that too. They don't know that if they cared for anything or anyone else but themselves they would prosper even more and in many ways. But they work on principles of selfishness, greed, paranoia, and hatred of anything different.

When young people enlist in the reserves or in the military forces in America from now on, they should understand that it is at their own risk. They may not come out of it alive. And, while they agree to those terms and conditions, they really are slaves of the state and don't really have any right to oppose what they have agreed to do. Come on, America. Wake up and smell the coffee. You can decide for yourself: preserve the status quo of the rich white american businessman and his interests, or, create a better world for yourselves and for everyone else. It's up to you. You can vote in buttlicker politicians who follow this conservative/fascist lead, or, you can elect people who have as their agenda to fix and right all the wrongs and to build a better, stronger, more democratic government. And, if you decide to become a reservist or a military man or woman, sorry to say it, but you do so at your own risk.

No One Left Behind 31.Jan.2005 15:38

twospiritwarrior

Young Girls To Be Drafted

 http://judicial-inc.biz/Draft_Girls.htm

... 31.Jan.2005 16:26

this thing here

January 31, 2005


Dear Mssr's,

Peter Beinart, Jeffrey Bergner, Daniel Blumenthal, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Ivo H. Daalder, Thomas Donnelly, Michele Flournoy, Frank F. Gaffney, Jr., Reuel Marc Gerecht,
Lt. Gen. Buster C. Glosson (USAF, retired), Bruce P. Jackson, Frederick Kagan, Robert Kagan, Craig Kennedy, Paul Kennedy, Col. Robert Killebrew (USA, retired), William Kristol, Will Marshall, Clifford May, Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, retired), Daniel McKivergan, Joshua Muravchik, Steven J. Nider, Michael O'Hanlon, Mackubin Thomas Owens, Ralph Peters, Danielle Pletka, Stephen P. Rosen, Major Gen. Robert H. Scales (USA, retired), Randy Scheunemann, Gary Schmitt, Walter Slocombe, James B. Steinberg, The Board, Trustees, and members of Project For a New American Century



To you, American soldiers are crack hits. And like all crack heads everywhere, you can't get enough to make your problems go away.

So, like crack heads who can't figure out who's responsible for their choices and the problems they bring, whining whinging whining, I will straigten something out for you.


THIS WAR WAS YOUR BRILLIANT IDEA.


YOU CHOSE TO DO IT.


YOU FUCKING EAT IT.


Not enough troops? TOUGH SHIT.

Sunni's won't behave? TOUGH SHIT.

Insurgency won't go away? TOUGH SHIT.

Want to invade Iran too, but don't have the manpower? TOUGH SHIT.

Children aren't singing songs about you? TOUGH SHIT.

Wanna whine some more? GO FUCKING LICK THE BOOTS OF ALL THE DEAD SOLDIERS YOUR "BRILLIANT THINK TANK IDEAS" have killed. And once you're done with that, lick the feet of all the dead Iraqi's, and Afghani's.


IT'S CALLED RESPONSIBILITY FOR FAILURE, you psychopaths.

Everything PNAC stands for will be proven wrong, in the end.

Not a question of proving PNAC wrong 31.Jan.2005 17:15

Me

I agree completely, but everything PNAC stands for has ALREADY been proven wrong and condemned for all time at Nuremberg - setting a standard, it appears, that was all too temporary. The question facing the world now is, what nation or coalition has the power to bring the PNAC generation of major war criminals to justice?

Hell No I won't Go 31.Jan.2005 17:47

my chant

Remember the other forced drafts? They also were unconstitutional-forced servitude-is not legal. This is where PERCEPTION becomes their tool. They own all dominant media and have since before we were born. Our job is to counter the propaganda machine as it goes into full force to create mass obedience.
Just because they pulled off this fiction in their managed world wars and minor wars in Korea and Vietnam does not mean it will work today--not if we expose them.

Draft Funk 01.Feb.2005 08:10

U. Sam

Here's the thing, if you start drafting people who don't want to go...how do you get them to fight with spirit?
You don't. Your not going to win jack with that. Jail is much better...free food, a roof over your head, air conditioning, recreation, and tv.

Sure, it sucks to be in a little cell, but you'll get out eventually and still be able to make love, not war. It's hard to get a date without a face. The good part is, now that they have access to everything about you. They can pick and choose the ones that go to war.

"oh, did you try exercise your rights by protesting? sign him up. How about you, oh, I see your father contributed to the bush campaign, your free to go. Woah, you've been busy writing on blogs haven't you, great, you'll be writing our propaganda for us, exactly as we dictate...ain't that a kick in the teeth? hey, we could just execute you, just kidding, now pick up the gun and free fire on that crowd so you'll be a traumatized wreck for the rest of your life. But don't come cryin' to us for anti-depressants you un-american liberal"

Meanwhile, one of their own, resigns in an attempt to stave off an ongoing investigation.

Pssst, where is bin laden? Yeah, we know all about "post 9/11" and how you got us here and that you don't plan on doing anything except inciting more terrorism by your played out 1950's bru-ha-ha strategies.

How many Neo-Cons does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
None, they just get Dubya do it for them.

How many democrats does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
As many as pNUT wants.

add a comment on this article