The high cost of killing people.

[Pat K]

Do You Feel a Draft?
May 21, 2008
Military.com|by Colin Clark

In an exchange sure to send ripples of anxiety through the all-volunteer military, the Senate's senior defense spending member asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen if it is time to "consider reinstituting the draft."

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii),  chairman of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, asked Gates and Mullen the question he said no one wants to ask: "Is the cost of maintaining an all-volunteer force becoming unsustainable and, secondly, do we need to consider reinstituting the draft."

Inouye cited the ever-increasing pay and benefits paid to active and reserve service members, noting that it now costs an estimated $126,000 per service member.

Gates and Mullen both said they thought the current volunteer force was the finest the U.S. has ever fielded. Gates said he "personally" believes that "it is worth the cost."

Mullen was not quite as sanguine.

"A future that argues for, or results in, continuous escalation of those costs does not bode well for a military of this size," he said, adding it the rising costs will eventually force the US to shrink the military, spend less on new weapons or to "curtail operations." The question of pay and benefits for the U.S. military "is the top issue we need to come to terms with," Mullen said.

This marks the first time a senior member of Congress has seriously discussed reinstituting the draft in almost two years. Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, called for reinstituting the draft in November 2006.

Tuesday's discussion occurred during debate over the pending $70 billion emergency supplemental spending bill. Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday that the bill was unlikely to move before Labor Day, requiring a one month extension of war spending.

In related news, Gates was asked by Republican Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi during the appropriations hearing what would happen if the 2009 defense spending bill were not passed, requiring what is known as continuing resolution to provide the Defense Department with money.

Gates, clearly prepared for the question, said the department would face enormous losses should Congress rely on a resolution, losing nearly $8.7 billion dollars for increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, and see $246 million for the new Africa Command vanish along with $1.8 billion for base closure and realignment. A continuing resolution effectively funds a department at the levels it received the year before.


They must have done a brown person killed per dollar
                cost study and their getting worried.

[Jim Johnson]

"curtail operations"?  We'll think about that after... everything else.

[Russell Kanning]

Tuesday's discussion occurred during debate over the pending $70 billion emergency supplemental spending bill. Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday that the bill was unlikely to move before Labor Day, requiring a one month extension of war spending.

always an emergency
of coarse if they don't pass it .... they will just spend money anyways

[David]

They'er scared to death of a draft, because they know damn well the presure to end the occupation will be unbearable afterwards.  I love seeing the merchants of death sweat a bit. 

[Puke]

"A future that argues for, or results in, continuous escalation of those costs does not bode well for a military of this size," he said, adding it the rising costs will eventually force the US to shrink the military, spend less on new weapons or to "curtail operations."

We all know they can't possibly do that! 

[highline]

They'er scared to death of a draft, because they know damn well the presure to end the occupation will be unbearable afterwards.  I love seeing the merchants of death sweat a bit. 

I agree wholeheartedly.

I believe the same is true with raising taxes to pay for this damn conflict.  It is NOT a war.  An unconstitutional conflict.

[John Edward Mercier]

Actually if its not a war... its not unconstitutional.
Only Congress can declare war, but a military incursion may occur whenever the Executive office deems it to be in American interests. Precedent was set by President Thomas Jefferson during the Barbary Coast piracies.

[highline]

Actually if its not a war... its not unconstitutional.
Only Congress can declare war, but a military incursion may occur whenever the Executive office deems it to be in American interests. Precedent was set by President Thomas Jefferson during the Barbary Coast piracies.

Simply because there is a precedent of doing the wrong thing, it does not make it right.  The US Supreme Court created the fact that our Constitutional rights can be "reasonably" regulated.  Exactly where in the Constitution did we, the people, agree to allow our rights to be "reasonably" regulated.  We did not.  Yet there is a precedent.  A bad one.

Congress has what constitutional power?  To declare war.

Once that war is declared the Commander-in-Chief then directs it.  Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that the Congress can "authorize the use of military force" without declaring war.  The politicians specifically did NOT want Congress to declare war so that protections would not be available to the people illegally detained in Gitmo.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Actually if its not a war... its not unconstitutional.
Only Congress can declare war, but a military incursion may occur whenever the Executive office deems it to be in American interests. Precedent was set by President Thomas Jefferson during the Barbary Coast piracies.

It was un constitutional when he did it too.  He should have been imprisoned.

[Tom Sawyer]

Amen

One man sending our country to war is terrible.

[highline]

Actually if its not a war... its not unconstitutional.
Only Congress can declare war, but a military incursion may occur whenever the Executive office deems it to be in American interests. Precedent was set by President Thomas Jefferson during the Barbary Coast piracies.

It was un constitutional when he did it too.  He should have been imprisoned.

To echo Tom Sawyer.....: Amen brother.

George W. Bush should be tried for treason.

[Tom Sawyer]

Since torture is his thing...
I say ice water enemas on TV... we all get to watch him shiver. 

[Russell Kanning]

it would even be doing him good

[David]

Constitutional or not, preemtive war is a war crime.  It is not defense, it is offense.  Like it or not, no war or police action, or anything similar is ever justified, unless we are attacked.  Al Quada attacked us, Afganistan, and Iraq in particular had nothing to do with the hijackers. 
I am so glad that actions have consequences, because the consequences are the only thing that seems to be able to slow these kinds of crimes down.  I just wish they happened sooner. 

[highline]

Constitutional or not, preemtive war is a war crime.  It is not defense, it is offense.  Like it or not, no war or police action, or anything similar is ever justified, unless we are attacked.  Al Quada attacked us, Afganistan, and Iraq in particular had nothing to do with the hijackers. 
I am so glad that actions have consequences, because the consequences are the only thing that seems to be able to slow these kinds of crimes down.  I just wish they happened sooner. 

It could very easily be argued that the "terrorists" who attacked us on 9/11 were doing so in self defense.