Draft bills wandering the halls of Congress.

Hobbes

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4752.IH:

Had a read of it. Standard draft bill looks like. Manditory 2 years

Can't see it getting any support though as Draft tends to be a rude word.

Maybe Manic Moran knows.. how long would it take to train a newbie to active duty?

Also there is..
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.2723:

Seems to lower the age restrictions and time served. Longer read.

Victor

Hmmm, a tax on the young.

This is actually quite similar to the model used in quite a few European countries, although it tends to be for only a year, give or take.

Hobbes wrote:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4752.IH:

18-42 years of age. I wonder what the age profile is in congress.

dahamsta

To be fair, there's nearly always at least one nutty bill floating around Washington, and quite often one of them is a draft bill. Which isn't the same as saying it won't proceed. After all, if a bill can pass without anyone reading it...

bonkey

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatementDraft05262005.html

More on it.

Victor

I'm not sure if a 15-month draft is the solution to his problem. It just means lots of people get trained, but not necessarily well enough to serve overseas, thereby creating a burden on the army, when it is already overburdened.

I suspect treating ordinary soldiers and their families as human beings (and, uh, voters in an election year), would be much more useful. Sorting things like pay, conditions, housing, equipment & spares and cutting out the constant changes that just make people fed up with the life would make a huge change.

Getting rid of some of the Pentagon Generals with MBAs might also be good. "It's not just in time - its just to late".

Manic can say alot more.

Note, not invading a a whole country with less than half the army you had last time (when you only invaded a bit) might also be a useful point. However than doesn't solve the current problem