Draft Possible?
Talk of a draft grows despite denials by White House.
If we reframe the Iraq situation and have the possibility of a draft, what happens to American support for this war? It disappears.
It's one thing to have a son drafted into the Army to defend the nation. It's another thing when it's a war in another country, for obscure reasons, started with less than half truths...
Our generations may yet understand Viet Nam, in fear...
Tacitus gives his current opinion on Iraq, and mentions the draft, as a terrible but possibly necessary choice.
Via Daily KOS, this chilling comment from Paul Wolfowitz:
Q: Hi, Mr. Wolfowitz. My name is Ruthy Coffman. I think I speak for many of us here when I say that your policies are deplorable. They're responsible for the deaths of innocents and the disintegration of American civil liberties. [Applause]
We are tired, Secretary Wolfowitz, of being feared and hated by the world. We are tired of watching Americans and Iraqis die, and international institutions cry out in anger against us. We are simply tired of your policies. We hate them, and we will never stop opposing them. We will never tire or falter in our search for justice. And in the name of this ideal and the ideal of freedom, we assembled a message for you that was taken away from us and that message says that the killing of innocents is not the solution, but rather the problem. Thank you. [Applause and jeers]
Wolfowitz: I have to infer from that that you would be happier if Saddam Hussein were still in power. [Applause]
***snip***
Q: I'd just like to say that people like Ruthy and myself have always opposed Saddam Hussein, especially when Saddam Hussein was being funded by the United States throughout the '80s. And -- [Applause] And after the killings of the Kurds when the United States increased aid to Iraq. We were there opposing him as well. People like us were there. We are for democracy. And I have a question.
What do you plan to do when Bush is defeated in 2004 and you will no longer have the power to push forward the project for New American Century's policy of American military and economic dominance over the people of the world? [Applause]
Wolfowitz: I don't know if it was just Freudian or you intended to say it that way, but you said you opposed Saddam Hussein especially when the United States supported him.
It seems to me that the north star of your comment is that you dislike this country and its policies. [Applause]
And it seems to me a time to have supported the United States and to push the United States harder was in 1991 when Saddam Hussein was slaughtering those innocents so viciously.
So opposing policies is Unamerican. It's good to know that. Especially when we're being told that by one of the most powerful men in the current Administration.
on
| § 4
§ 4 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
But simply throwing more
But simply throwing more soldiers at the problem is not the best solution.
First, I am dubious that any military officer, from any service branch, seriously wished he had conscripts in his command to contend with. Modern conscripts would take their cues from the Vietnam-era program, not the WW2-era program. No one needs problem children.
Second, if the chain of command decided it needs more soldiers, it's not just a lack of warm bodies it seeks to remedy. They would need certain kinds of soldiers. If anything they need more warriors, and fewer cooks; more translators, civil affairs, and JAG types, fewer truck drivers.
As for the quote from Wolfowitz et al: his remark was at least as stupid as his interlocutor's. Folks who work the phrase American "military and economic dominance over the people of the world" into a question are not to be taken seriously.
So you are saying that Bush
So you are saying that Bush policy is something other than projecting an image, at least, of dominance?
John Barlow:
[url=http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002606.html#more]http://www.calpundit…]
Tell me what you believe is the underlying strategy, right now, if not projection of dominance.
GHWBush:
GHWBush:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream . . . and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. . . . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect rule Iraq. . . . There was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see. . . . Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome."
Thing is, I don't want to
Thing is, I don't want to have 2 conversations at the same time- I just don't have the capacity for it, and I recognize my limitations.
So what I'm saying as far as manpower and a draft goes, is that there is a huge amount of baggage associated with conscription, and I don't think that in the Iraq scenario it's the best course of action. I think the security situation there is largely a force-protection problem, which means more and better intelligence to improve the situation, real HUMINT, as opposed to fancy satellites and other gee-whiz, Tom Clancy technology.
With that in mind, you need either more people who are trained to get close and fight effectively, and/or more and better support people like effective Arabic linguists, legal/civil affairs people to get social services better organized, and maybe engineers. As opposed to just drafting raw numbers to feed a manpower machine.
As for the Big Picture, the current Iraq mission may reinforce an image that the President is cultivating, but I don't think it's a strategy unto itself. It has more to do with marketing than war-fighting. But the mission of securing and improving Iraq is one that must be won, if for no other reason (and there are other reasons) than because the US has undertaken the job. And the way to win it is to stay until it's finished.
When contemplating the Big Picture, I avoid the screeching, jumping-up-and-down, militant uber-hippies who see the world in terms of Amerikkka and Bu$h taking control of the poor besotted multitudes on Earth. Frankly, I think much of the world would give their left arm to be conquered by the US. Would save them the trouble of sneaking here on their own, for starters, if the US went to them.
But I think the ranting classes imagine a policy prescience in the executive and legislative branches that simply is not there.