Guest guest Posted January 30, 2005 Report Share Posted January 30, 2005 D Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:11:29 -0800 (PST) Subject:Unite to Fight the Draft (see 1/28 PNAC letter to Congress) Neocons calling for Draft On the Project for the New American Century website, there is a letter dated January 28, 2005 addressed to leaders of Congress calling for an increase in military. If you read the letter carefully (see below) you will see that they are calling for a military draft. Anyone who opposes the draft and who is willing to work to stop it (regardless of political party affiliation) is invited to join a strictly-moderated, focused group discussing the single issue of stopping the draft. To read the letter on the PNAC website, either read it below, or visit: http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm To join the group that will discuss and organize to fight the draft, go to: FightTheDraft/ Thank you in advance, Moderator, FightTheDraft (Neocons) Project for the New American Century 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 http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2005 Report Share Posted January 31, 2005 I am an American living in Australia, I am also a permanent resident with citizenship about a year away. I am 21 years old, can I be drafted living here? Brandon On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:48:39 -0000, califpacific <califpacific wrote: > > > D > Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:11:29 -0800 (PST) > > Subject:Unite to Fight the Draft (see 1/28 PNAC letter to Congress) > > Neocons calling for Draft > > On the Project for the New American Century website, there is a letter > dated January 28, 2005 addressed to leaders of Congress calling for an > increase in military. If you read the letter carefully (see below) > you will see that they are calling for a military draft. > > Anyone who opposes the draft and who is willing to work to stop it > (regardless of political party affiliation) is invited to join a > strictly-moderated, focused group discussing the single issue of > stopping the draft. > > To read the letter on the PNAC website, either read it below, or visit: > http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm > > To join the group that will discuss and organize to fight the draft, > go to: > FightTheDraft/ > > Thank you in advance, > > Moderator, FightTheDraft > > > > > (Neocons) Project for the New American Century > > > 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 > > http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 If memory servs me right, didn't the British Empire have these problems, with all of the countries thy decided *needed their expert help*!? sound familiar... ng - " BunyaMeezers " <bunyameezers Monday, January 31, 2005 6:31 AM Re: Neocons calling for Draft > > > I am an American living in Australia, I am also a permanent resident > with citizenship about a year away. I am 21 years old, can I be > drafted living here? > > Brandon > > > On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:48:39 -0000, califpacific <califpacific wrote: > > > > > > D > > Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:11:29 -0800 (PST) > > > > Subject:Unite to Fight the Draft (see 1/28 PNAC letter to Congress) > > > > Neocons calling for Draft > > > > On the Project for the New American Century website, there is a letter > > dated January 28, 2005 addressed to leaders of Congress calling for an > > increase in military. If you read the letter carefully (see below) > > you will see that they are calling for a military draft. > > > > Anyone who opposes the draft and who is willing to work to stop it > > (regardless of political party affiliation) is invited to join a > > strictly-moderated, focused group discussing the single issue of > > stopping the draft. > > > > To read the letter on the PNAC website, either read it below, or visit: > > http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm > > > > To join the group that will discuss and organize to fight the draft, > > go to: > > FightTheDraft/ > > > > Thank you in advance, > > > > Moderator, FightTheDraft > > > > > > > > > > (Neocons) Project for the New American Century > > > > > > 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 > > > > http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.