<p>AP
A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed “large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists” to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization.</p>
<p>The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines.</p>
<p>A fair number of AA and Mexican gang members are also in the armed services. I have seen several photos of groups of soldiers flashing gang signs. Most make for some interesting dynamics.</p>
<p>There’s no question these guys need to be screened out.</p>
<p>A related question is that if these guys are successfully screened out, would it be in such numbers that a draft would be needed to make up the shortfall? There certainly is some political risk to reinstating the draft.</p>
<p>Speaking of the draft and its corresponding political risk, whatever happened to President Bush’s “secret plan” to bring back the draft. Remember how before the 2004 election Kerry, Edwards, the Democratic National Committee et al had the President’s “secret plan” as one of their favorite talking points. It was all the talk amongst the RockTheVote crowd. Two years later and there’s still no draft. </p>
<p>What happened to that “secret plan”? My bet is that the NYT is about to bust the secret plan wide open. They’re good at that.</p>
<p>I don’t know why they aren’t drafting already - it’s impossible to occupy a country of 27 million people with 138,000 soldiers; the military and logistic planners all knew this, but Bush and Rumsfeld had this cute idea that we could do a satisfactory job in Iraq by half-assing it. Send out the draft cards, there should be 250,000-500,000 soldiers in Iraq if we wish to totally clamp the insurgency.</p>
<p>No WAY will the American public countenance a reinstatement of the draft for this mightily unpopular war. The GOP knows that it could not advocate such action prior to the 2008 Presidential election. It would guarantee the White House to the Democrats, no matter who they might place on the ticket. I personally would not support a draft that might put my now sixteen year old son in harm’s way—not for THIS war. </p>
<p>Concerning the neo-nazis and skin heads in the army—wasn’t Timothy McVey one of their ilk while serving in the Army a number of years ago? If so, they phenomenon is hardly new.</p>
<p>I think if we brought back a draft, it would be hugely unpopular so the political implications make this seem very unlikley. Especially if there were no college deferment.</p>
<p>Haven’t our guys over there seen their tours of duty extended? Also, we seem to be using a lot of reservists while keeping a lot of the regulars on bases here and in Germany. Why? Is there a reason we need to guard Berlin or Texas or Florida or any where else (exception for Korea) if we’re really at the point where we have to go so far as to enlist skinheads and gangbangers?</p>
<p>Currently, there are about 1/2 million active duty Army troops, backed up by 700,000 National Guard and Army reservists. We have about 140,000 Army troops are in Iraq; 9,000 Army troops are in Afghanistan; 3,000 help keep the peace in Bosnia, as do 37,000 in South Korea. </p>
<p>Civilians can replace uniformed soldiers and officers at a great number of cushy jobs in the US. Not until the last one of the uniformed career soldiers has put in a tour should they think about a draft. </p>
<p>Signing up for the army is a personal decision that includes the risk of being sent to war, and it does not diminish with the number of years of service or the proximity of early retirement.</p>
<p>I have no doubt that if President Bush were to have enacted a “secret plan” it would have been hugely divisive and unpopular. That’s why Kerry and the DNC’s telling the American people that he did have one was so shameless.</p>
<p>There will not be a draft. The Republicans cannot afford political suicide. </p>
<p>However, while REenlistment is apparently up, Xiggi, ENlistment is way, way down. And who can blame the folks who thought they were signing on as reservists, for their one weekend a month and free tuition, and instead end up in a macabre war zone. Now people know better, and run the other way when the recruiters come knocking.</p>
<p>Good points xiggi and let’s not forget the significant numbers of Marines, Navy, and Air Force troops in service.</p>
<p>Also, taking recruits that could benefit from some military discipline is nothing new. For decades people have joined the military to help straighten them up - sometimes on their own, sometimes with the strong urging of their parents or even a judge. Hopefully some of the criminal elements will get straightened up or weeded out. It could be that getting them out of the hood and allowing them to mix with others and expand their horizons will help them break from the gang habits. </p>
<p>But what does any of this have to do with a College forum?</p>
<p>Actually, this is not true at all. Enlistment rates have exceeded targets in almost all branches of the services. Naval reserves appears to be the only one with a significant deficit but all ground-based services are essentially meeting or exceeding their goals.</p>
<p>Another interesting set of data (that would not make Charlie Rangel very happy) - after the Iraq war started, the percentage of recruits from the wealthiest quintile of population areas rose from 19% (a 1% under-representation) to 23% (a 3% over-representation). Meanwhile, the percentage from the poorest quintile dropped from 18% (a 2% under-representation) to 15% (a 5% under-representation).</p>
<p>OK, if the enlistment goals are being met, why are they letting skinheads and gangabangers in?</p>
<p>Please spare me the notion that these guys are “misguided” and could just use some miliatry discpline to straighten up and fly right. No, these guys are the “misguiders” (my word before Bush’s .)</p>
<p>I would imagine that if these guys have criminal records and discernible attributes contrary to what the military accepts, they wouldnt accept them. Whether them being skinheads or gangbangers is discernible in the recruitment/induction process is probably the question. What if they don’t have a criminal record? What’s the military supposed to do then? </p>
<p>As far as the ‘boots on the ground’, I think the combo of the military leaders currently in charge and the politicians currently in charge have determined the number presently required and they have what they believe they need. Of course, many armchair Generals and especially unqualified (in military matters) talk show hosts (both sides of the issue) and handpicked ex-military consultants will disagree endlessly as to what they think should be the number of troops on the ground and how the missions should be planned but none of them are actually involved in whatever the current situation of the time is.</p>
<p>So this is the Democrat’s strategy for '08? Secretly push a draft through Congress and blame the GOP? At least Lieberman has the courage to not waver from his stance.</p>
.)</p>