70 Year Old Sent to Afghanistan-If this doesn't show a draft is coming, what does?

In High School I won a trophy for a acting competition in my region for doing a skit about the vietnam war. It was about a man going to the drafting medical examiner and answering all the quesitons falsely in hopes of getting 4F. It was quite funny, however this is not. I feel a draft coming when we have to get the elderly to go to war and fight, practice medicine, cook or whatever!

Dr. John Caulfield thought it had to be a mistake when the Army asked him to return to active duty. After all, he's 70 years old and had already retired - twice. He left the Army in 1980 and private practice two years ago.

"My first reaction was disbelief," Caulfield said. "It never occurred to me that they would call a 70-year-old."

In fact, he was so sure it was an error that he ignored the postcards and telephone messages asking if he would be willing to volunteer for active duty to "backfill" somewhere on the East Coast, Europe or Hawaii. That would be OK, he thought. It would release active duty oral surgeons from those areas to go to combat zones in Iraq or Afghanistan.

But then the orders came for him to go to Afghanistan Source

1) What other clues have you found that a draft is coming?
2) Would you dodge the draft
3) Is this just more propaganda to get us scared to trust and follow our leader?

OMG, let the guy stay at home.
He has already retired. This is just sickening. Watch out here it comes.

I would certainly hope that this is nothing more than a clerical error. If they are serious in trying to get a 70 year old retired military man back into active duty, then this is far worse than a draft.

A friend of mine got out of the Air Force in 1961. Her kids are worried she'll get drafted. I definitely won't show them this!

well according to this article it was volunteer. still it looks like the service has a shortage of doctors more than anything else. I wouldnt worry about a draft upfront or backdoor unless your a doc.

then again maybe we should just get the hell out of there already.

I'm just sitting here wondering......
do any of the supreme court justices have military backgrounds???
Boy, would that ever make the headlines!!

On the other hand, those kids could need somebody they can look up to and actually isn't nuts at all.

Of course 70 is way too old for serving in combat but as an advisor for the troops it could have positive effects.

I'm not sure that I'd want a 70 yr old digging bits and peices of metal our of my organs, heck, I'm not even 50 yet and the only way I could see the little buggers is if I were to crawl inside and get up to them real close....

I dont think the guy's going into a war zone any time soon.

I would certainly hope that this is nothing more than a clerical error. If they are serious in trying to get a 70 year old retired military man back into active duty, then this is far worse than a draft.

Isn't that the truth....

Here's an interesting project though....look at the recall rules, and see if there's an age limit... I'm betting there isn't one, and that this wasn't a clerical error, but simply a circumstance that nobody in their right mind thought would ever occur, hehe....

I don't see how this has anything whatsoever to do with a draft.

This is, in fact, a good way to avoid the necessity of a draft if you actually think about it logically.

Read the article you yourself posted.

Dr. John Caulfield thought it had to be a mistake when the Army asked him to return to active duty.

It does say asked.

It also states that many of these retirees that are being asked to come back are people who served at 18 and now 20 years later are in their late 30s. Not necessarily abnormal.

Two quotes from the gentleman himself sum this up.

"Because there is no draft, they are using and maybe overusing the National Guard and Reserve," he said. "There is no obligatory method."

and

"I've been a soldier for 25 years," he said. "When your country asks, you do it."

The way I see it, this program is a great way to combat a shortage of manpower without resorting to a draft. I think you're all reading into this the wrong way. These people aren't being forced back, they're being asked back. What's wrong with that? Maybe there are some retired soldiers in their late 30s and early 40s that could use some income and would be more than happy to take on the job. I'd rather have those WILLING people take the job rather than unwilling people who've been drafted. Wouldn't you?

You say we are reading this the wrong way and what does it have to do with a draft? 'Read the article you yourself posted.' ???? Why don't you try to understand our position on the issue instead of just saying there is nothing wrong with this.

What does it have to do with a draft, nothing, until there are no more 70 year-olds to go to war. In the article he also talks about us overusing the National Guard. So the point is, is that when we are calling out people who have been retired for over 20 years and make it sound like it's 'back-fill' when it's realling going to front-line action. That is cause for worry. About what? The draft. This is in no way avoiding the draft, it's prolonging the inevitable.

Originally posted by Djarums
I don't see how this has anything whatsoever to do with a draft.

This is, in fact, a good way to avoid the necessity of a draft if you actually think about it logically.

Read the article you yourself posted.

Dr. John Caulfield thought it had to be a mistake when the Army asked him to return to active duty.

It does say asked.

It also states that many of these retirees that are being asked to come back are people who served at 18 and now 20 years later are in their late 30s. Not necessarily abnormal.

Two quotes from the gentleman himself sum this up.

"Because there is no draft, they are using and maybe overusing the National Guard and Reserve," he said. "There is no obligatory method."

and

"I've been a soldier for 25 years," he said. "When your country asks, you do it."

The way I see it, this program is a great way to combat a shortage of manpower without resorting to a draft. I think you're all reading into this the wrong way. These people aren't being forced back, they're being asked back. What's wrong with that? Maybe there are some retired soldiers in their late 30s and early 40s that could use some income and would be more than happy to take on the job. I'd rather have those WILLING people take the job rather than unwilling people who've been drafted. Wouldn't you?

70 years old?
Send 'em in!

Give them an armoured zimmer frame and a tricked out mobility scooter with built in guns and they will be faster into battle than the Iraqi national guard

What a nice tidy way to get rid of all those old buggers on their pensions!

I think it's fairly obvious I am not saying send anyone elderly on the front lines.

Let's do it AGAIN for everyone's sake:

There are many retirees from the military who joined at 18 and leave at 38. By asking them to come back (and paying them) they can use them in many different functions (for example chaplains, doctors) and allow them to use their existing manpower more efficiently.

If anything that will prevent drafting, or at the very least delay it.

Which part of that is hard to understand?

70 is irrelevant. This is a common practice now as you can tell from dozens of instances in recent memory. Are you telling me a 40 year old man couldn't serve in the position this 70 year old (accidentally or not) is filling? Why should we draft an unwilling 18 year old into the army if a 38 year old is willing to go??

Again I reiterate, this prolongs/prevents a draft.

00PS, calm the hell down and read my actual point before accusing me of wanting to send nursing home residents to Iraq.

[edit on 12-13-2004 by Djarums]

I'm glad we cremated daddy!

Well from your previous post I see now that you are conflicting, before it had nothing to do with a draft and was a way to avoid it, but now you are agreeing with me that it's just a delay, and your second word prolong, wich in both cases presume the inevitable forthcoming of a draft. I never totally said it was coming, I just said if this isn't proof that it is, then what is. Who knows for sure, I don't but it does look like we are a bit stretched thing when we SEND 70 YEAR OLDS to AFGHANISTAN!! -Calm? I am Calm...

Originally posted by Djarums
I don't see how this has anything whatsoever to do with a draft.

This is, in fact, a good way to avoid the necessity of a draft if you actually think about it logically.

Originally posted by 00PS
willing to volunteer for active duty to "backfill" somewhere on the East Coast, Europe or Hawaii. That would be OK, he thought. It would release active duty oral surgeons from those areas to go to combat zones in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Think some people are missing the point. The guy's a retired DENTIST a.k.a oral surgeon, Spending your last day's in Hawaii looking after the office works fillings sounds good to me where do i sign up???

That's the whole silly thing about this all, he didn't get sent to Hawaii or anything else mentioned...Typical American Recruiting styles...promises promises, where did he get sent, Friggin Afghanistan!

This guy is an oral surgeon, not a soldier of any kind. If he's got the skills and they can call him up, why shouldn't they?

Incidentally he was not thrown into the back of a truck blindfolded and sent to Afghanistan.

He was asked to take on an assignment and in his own words his patriotic feelings convinced him to go. That's what I gathered from the article which was written in pretty plain and clear language.

Now as for prolong vs. prevent:

My personal view is that there will never be a draft again. There are many reasons I feel this way the majority of which have to do with the problems of having unwilling combatants. A smaller second reason has to do more with the level of skill required to be in the armed services today and the fact that many people who "would be" drafted do not possess them. This is a highly technological war with a lot of specialty weapons, as opposed to our last war that had a draft in which you were issued a gun and told to look for an asian to kill. Do we want unqualified unhappy pissed off kids fighting the war on terror, or do we want highly trained paid professional specialists? I'd go with the latter.

So now that we've established my opposition to the draft, I can explain my earlier statements.

Many people, media included of course, enjoy pointing out numbers. Everyone loves solid numbers because very often you don't have to provide an explanation of them. The numbers indicate that we're running short on soldiers, right? What's an army to do with not enough soldiers? Clearly the answer is get more.

Now, in an effort to steer far far away from the army of unwilling foot soldiers that I mentioned above, a feasible alternative is to make offers to people who were previously in the army and have since left. You won't get them all back, but you will get some back, and that will assist in alleviating some number problems. Let some 45 year olds fill some desk jobs, or chaplain jobs, or medical jobs, so the younger folks can be put into more active details.

I believe a plan like that pushes aside any consideration of a draft at all! Will one ever be necessary? I'm no prophet and I won't try to make predictions, that's a whole other forum. What I'm trying to say is that this plan is not a sign of a possible draft coming up, but rather a sign that goes to show that the Government does not want a draft and wishes to push away all considerations of one as long as humanly possible.