It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Here it comes... PNAC wants more cannon fodder

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Project for a New American Century (the people who brought you the neocon agenda and whose founding members… well you know) are calling for an increase in US ground forces.

On January 28, 2005 the PNAC published a Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces.



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.
...
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.


How to achieve that increase is not outlined but their reference to "resistance" can only mean the resistance to the draft. I conclude this because just about every trick in the book - recruitment drives, propaganda (Hollywood and video games etc.), increases in pay and death settlements, extending tours and commitments - poaching the national guard (the back door draft) - have been implemented and are not working. That leaves some sort of draft. There are post-election signs that they have already been preparing – Are they getting ready for the Draft...?



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 "GREATER Middle East" does not bode well for Iran and Syria.

And which generation will fulfill the "military aspect" of the commitment?
Are you of draft age?
They are talking about you!

The letter is addressed from PNAC to Congress and the language being used ("you and your colleagues in the legislative branch"; "our civilian leadership") gives the impression that they are speaking for (or to) the military or some "other" leadership.



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.


So despite the record debts and deficits and the precarious petrodollar, not to mention the US already spends more on "defense" than the next 25 countries combined! (Military Spending. Is it out of control?) They believe spending can be sustained and should be increased.



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.


Considering who the PNAC are, this should be viewed as the Republican administration indirectly telling it's Republican dominated Congress to "get with the program".

Is it me or is it getting drafty down there?

edit: brain fart

[edit on 2/1/2005 by Gools]




posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
But the defense of the United States is the first priority of the government.



Nice commentary, Gools!

The neo-con think tank has confused "defense" with "foreign incursion and strategic expansion" yet again. But when you are a corrupt administration, the terms can be used freely and interchangably.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I hope involuntary military enrollment is what the mandate of the populace of the United States is wanting, because that is what they're going to get.



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Nice work, Gools!

I think they should stop for a moment and think... Vietnam was mainly fought with a conscripted army, and look how it ended. The French in Algeria used a conscripted army too, and look how it ended. Today's military is a very sophisticated tool, too sophisticated for conscripts with little training and low morale. Even patrolling a road requires a degree of training and expertise that the average drafted man cannot achieve with its poor, short and technically lacking training. It would also be interesting to see if they calculated the decrease in GDP growth that this will cause, since it would require to use those young persons (18-25) that are the backbone of a good economic growth.
It's another clear example of what happens when a politician thinks to be a great soldier...



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 05:56 AM
link   
They'll probably start draining the Navy and Air Force of their manpower first....turn them into marines...then when that don't work.........

Bush will end up proving himself to be a lier, even his staunchest supporters won't be able to deny it!!!

Unless of course, he's finally figured out that the Project for a New American Century just don't know what the heck they are talking about.



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
Bush will end up proving himself to be a lier, even his staunchest supporters won't be able to deny it!!!


They will find a way! They're hopless and clueless.


Unless of course, he's finally figured out that the Project for a New American Century just don't know what the heck they are talking about.


Well, considering that the original members who drew up the blueprints for the Empire Building excercise the country is currently embarked upon are currently in charge, I would not take that bet.

It really is a cult, complete with a delusional messianic figure.
.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Other threads are discussing the latest attempt to bolster the ranks of the military in the US:

Army to raise recruitment age to 40!

US Army Raises Enlistment Age Ceiling

See when PNAC speaks this administration listens... or does PNAC speak for them like I alluded to?


Add this to the list of other measures implemented to boost recruitment:

Are they getting ready for the Draft...?

...and some people can see the draft comming.

Others still refuse to admit it but how many more ways are there to keep putting it off?
.

[edit on 3/22/2005 by Gools]



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Vietnam was mainly fought with a conscripted army, and look how it ended.

Yeah but in fact, based on what the goals of Vietnam were (destablization of an emerging independent nation), it was a success, as is Iraq. As Chomsky said recently:


Noam Chomsky: Well, I don't think that Vietnam was a mistake; I think it was a success. [...]

To determine whether it was a failure you have to first look at what the goals were. [...] The concern is independent nationalism which is unacceptable in itself because it extricates some part of the world that the US wants to dominate. And it has an extra danger if it is likely to be successful in terms that are likely to be meaningful to others who are suffering from the same conditions.

So in the former colonial world, the Third World and the south, the problem was what planners called the rotten apple that might spoil the barrel or a virus that might infect others. The virus is independent nationalism that seems as though it may be successful in terms that are meaningful to others that are suffering similar problems. That's a theme that goes through the entire documentary record and it was a concern in Vietnam. So the US, during the late 1940s, hadn't really decided whether to support the French in their re-conquest of the former colony or to take the path that they did in Indonesia in 1948 and support the independence movement against the Dutch. But the issue was: suppose Vietnam turns out to be an independence movement that is out of control. They knew it was not run by the Russians and the Chinese: that was for public show. It was clearly an independent nationalist movement which could turn out to be successful. [...]

By around 1960 the US recognized that it could not maintain a client state in Vietnam. The client state, which had already killed maybe 60,000 people, had engendered resistance which it could not control. So in 1962 Kennedy simply invaded the country outright. That's when US bombing started, chemical warfare, attempts to drive people into concentration camps and so on, and from then on it just escalated. By 1967 South Vietnam was practically destroyed. Bernard Fall, who is a very respected and rather hawkish military analyst and Vietnam specialist, was writing by 1967 that he wondered whether Vietnam could survive as a historic and cultural entity under the assault of the biggest military machine of all time. There was very little protest at that time. The US and England and the rest were just content to see Vietnam destroyed. That was much worse than anything happening in Iraq. It looked at that point as if they would conquer Vietnam. The Tet Offensive [a major national offensive by anti-US Vietnamese forces in early 1968] made it clear it was going to be a long war. At that point the business world turned against the war and decided this is just not worth it. They said we have already achieved the main objectives and Vietnam is not going to undergo successful independent development. It will be lucky if it survives. So it is pointless; why waste the money on it. The main goal had been achieved by the early seventies.

You start reading in the Far Eastern Economic Review that this was a pointless enterprise, you guys have basically won so just go home and quit. Why ruin your economy, spoil your situation in the world scene and so on. And they assumed that now that it is destroyed it will sooner or later be absorbed into our system, which is in fact what happened. Well that's a partial victory not a defeat. The defeat was that they didn't achieve their maximal goal which was to turn all of Indochina into something like Guatemala or the Philippines, and that they didn't achieve, but they did achieve their main goal.

So while Vietnam didn't become the US client state like the philippines, we successfully smashed any independent nationalism on their part so for the hawks and bankers who organized that war, it was a success.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   


Good post Gools.

...Remember - there is NO budget for recruitment in the latest budget - despite the obvious need for troops. At the same time, the age has been raised to 40.

...Think Select Service. ...There will be a national emergency allowing conscription into the SS - then, personnel will be drafted into the military from there. No military draft required.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow


Good post Gools.

...Remember - there is NO budget for recruitment in the latest budget - despite the obvious need for troops. At the same time, the age has been raised to 40.

...Think Select Service. ...There will be a national emergency allowing conscription into the SS - then, personnel will be drafted into the military from there. No military draft required.

You've got it exactly right soficrow. It is not legally necessary that actual military draft in the conventional sense be implemented, for conscription to take place. We should all be so astute.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
The little ppl have to pay with more(lives, $$$, time,etc.), and beneifit less. Plus, it allows for a world communist state, which as we all know, if one studies history, that it only works on paper.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   
don't forget troops for civilian leadership can also be for civilian control, you know like, .....checkpoints, papers, curfew, search and seizure, detainment, relocation, quarantine, etc.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I've been watching the military channel and there are a lot of changes that need to be made.

1. If you expect me to fight for you, then you better address me as Sir.

2. Yelling will not get me up at 5am. A BJ will (from a female).

3. Copious amounts of drugs. PCP for duty. And some nice afghani gold before bed.

4. I want access to the intelligence, satellite feeds, etc. The officers are clueless when it comes to actual engagement and what's needed to keep casualities down.

5. Money and lots of it. $400 a day will work just fine. And I want it in Euro not that crappy debt-backed, U.S. currency.

6. My CO better be as intelligent or more than me. I cannot respect the authority of an idiot.

7. Whoever the current general is, fire him.

8. Introduce non-lethal weapons in the campaign. You wanna win this war you need to play the humanitarian card.

I'll have more points ready in the coming months. I'll pass the revisions through congress while they're on vacation. Then in June you can start the SS conscription.

We'll bring peace to this world if we have to kill every last human.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join