Redstate

 There is no support among the American people for a draft - I'm sure you've seen the polls.

 The politicians in office will not risk the seats that they spend so much time making comfortable for themselves by offering something that would be the equivalent of arsenic for their careers.

 The ONLY time it might have worked would have been right after 9/11. That window has closed.

agrees with you.

OMAHA WORLD-HERALD Subscription only.

The article can be found here.

Hagel:

Meanwhile, U.S. troops are under severe strain. Troops are stationed in more than 100 countries, and their rapid tempo of deployments with little time off leaves them fatigued and in danger of making mistakes.

"We are destroying the finest military in the history of mankind, and the (National) Guard, too," he said. "We're stretching our Army to the breaking point.

The entire article is worth the read, Hagel has a lot to say.

You reference the Civil war, and the First and Second World Wars as conflicts that "commanded the enthusiastic endorsement of the American public for the duration of the war...."

I omitted the Spanish-American War.  By the time the folks out here in what is now flyover country knew it was going on, it was over.

In the case of the Civil War, that's a bit of a strain.  A third or more of the Nation was at war with the rest of it.  And I'll point you to such things as the draft riots in New York and the substantial question of Lincoln's re-election right up until the polling took place to add fuel to that fire.  IIRC, Lincoln, like Bill Clinton, never got a true majority of the popular vote.  And one could hardly count 1864 in any case, with the South not voting.

WWI?  Wilson would have had substantial trouble keeping us involved had it gone on another two years.

The Second World War was when we were committed.

And now to the meat of the matter.  I will support a draft if and when it is universal.  No C.O. status.  No physical deferments.  No student deferments.  No nothing.

If you can pass a law that on the day someone turns 19, or 20, or whatever age, they serve for two years, or whatever the term is, I'll be OK with it.

But if it's pick and choose, it's a batch of crap.  Always has been, and always will be.

Can you go "all or nothing"?

And then tell me how you are going to pay for it all.  

Aye, there's the real rub!

 Do you mean the Spanish Civil War, or the Mexican American war?

 If the former, most of the folks who fought in it who were from the US were eventually run up in front of the Dies Committee.

 If the latter, not everyone loved it.....

The drafted army has its place -- when you need large numbers of troops to either absorb the shock from the opponent's army or when a numbers are necessary to put pressure on a weaker force in many places. Neither of these are in play now.

The US military is the best because it can equip and train people who want desire to be a part of the effort. People benefit from the training and discipline because they want to be there. Teaching a draftee anything of the intricacies of soldiering beyond point-and-shoot is a very difficult. They serve well when the number of pieces of information can be kept to a minimum --kill them, don't kill us. When the lessons of soldering include things like local public relations and Quran handling etiquette a draftee will do more harm than good.

Draftees cause at least as many problems as they solve in a war zone. The last thing the military needs is to spend effort in Iraq to patch relations after drunken brawls - a fairly common feature of drafted military. The Military Police can only be used for convoy escort if they aren't spending their time rounding up desserters and keeping soldiers from smuggling drugs into the US.

Virtually nobody in the military wants to see a draft. It's way more trouble than it's worth. Getting a few good people that want to be there is much better than getting millions who resent the fact that they were torn from their civilian life.

Most calling for a draft do so because they do not wish the military to succeed. They long for the days when the American Soldier was synonymous with drug crazed killer. The volunteer army doesn't give nearly as many stories of mad rampages or rape of local women as some would desire. I don't put you in that category, but many are.

Also known as war of 1898. It's neither the Spanish Civil war nor the Mexican-American war. It's when we siezed the Phillipine Islands and Cuba from Spain.

 Brain finally engaged fully. My bad.

The drafted army has its place....when a numbers are necessary to put pressure on a weaker force in many places.

Which is, of course, precisely the case in Iraq and Afghanistan now.

Teaching a draftee anything of the intricacies of soldiering beyond point-and-shoot is a very difficult.

I disagree, of course.  Historically, American conscript armies have done quite well at handling difficult situations and advanced technology.  You may be thinking of the Russians.

Draftees cause at least as many problems as they solve in a war zone.

Except, of course, when they win said war.  On the subject of relations with the locals, I find it difficult to accept the argument that volunteer soldiers do a better job after Abu Ghraib, et al.

Virtually nobody in the military wants to see a draft.

Well, that's quite true.  But it doesn't take much research to figure that what the preponderance of the military wants is not always what the military needs.

Except when he agrees with me, of course.  But in seriousness, he's busy positioning himself as the antiwar GOP candidate -- as he always has, apparently.  Hagel wouldn't defend Taiwan, either, so we can see how staunch his support of liberty abroad is.

It's one thing to point out that there are serious problems in the war -- it's another to proclaim that we're "losing," as Hagel does.  I find that irresponsible and detestable.

And I would really appreciate a plausible explanation why, here, not just some mention of a 'crackpot idea why not' -- that having more U.S. troops in Iraq would help this situation?

Are you honestly asserting that it is the American troops who are not doing their jobs well enough?  That they are not training Iraqi troops to take control over their own country?  Let's speculate -- what would happen if the United States decided to send another 100,000 troops to Iraq tomorrow.  Assuming we could provide all the elaborately armored vehicles needed to support those troops (because, if we don't the New York Times would certainly object!) but let's imagine we did.

Is there any evidence that those troops would be doing a more effective job in the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis?   The British have done such a wonderful job in Basra with their relatively few troops -- why do people think that more for the United States would be better?

Do you honestly believe that a new influx of American troops to Iraq would scare the people coming across the border to fight Americans, or further embolden them?   Our stated objective in the war, as far as I've been able to tell from the President's lips, has been to stay until the job was done, and Rumsfeld's prescription has been to use the minimum number of American forces possible to get the job done.  Would more American dead coming back home in body bags make the war effort seem more worthwhile or less?  Would it help stanch the flow of people across Iraq's borders -- Iraq is now a sovereign nation, so why should we send more troops to help their own people defend it?  

Please, give me some answers to these questions.  I don't see how any of the things you prescribe would help the war effort succeed, or proceed more quickly, or in a less costly way.  In fact, I think you're dead wrong.

I once again find myself in disagreement with my esteemed colleague.

Beyond the fact that a draft is politically untenable, a draft isn't compatible with the way we currently fight wars. Since the end of the Cold War, and especially since the battle at Mogadishu, the Army has been refocusing on the threat of unconventional warfare. Things like "network-centric warfare" and MOUT training are critical towards creating a military structure that's resilient and flexible enough to fight the kind of low-level warfare we're facing in Iraq right now.

Our problem isn't that the military is breaking in Iraq - it's that we've been breaking it for years now. Most of my military buddies have said that the current situation isn't all that different than the way things have been for the past decade. We've been stretching our forces thinner and thinner as we've been cutting back on military manpower. We've put our forces on what amounts to a constant war footing for years now.

A draft isn't going to fix this problem. It takes too long to train draftees into competent soldiers. Our military doesn't need more cannon fodder - it needs trained and effective fighters. Conscripts can't be plopped into a modern battlefield straight out of basic and expect to integrate into a modern military unit. They're not a force multiplier - they're a force diminisher.

In order to maintain a conscript army, we'd need to further stretch our forces in the short-term, which is only going to make things worse.

The fact is that our "exit strategy" in the short term is exactly what it always has been - get the Iraqi military ready enough to start providing for their own defense. A draft won't help us in Iraq - by the time we can get one going we should be able to begin drawing down our forces as the Iraqis replace coalition troops.

In the long term, we need to spend the money to expand our professional volunteer military. That means increasing base pay, streamlining the requisition process to keep our soldiers well-equipped, and continuing the process of military transformation from a military based on countering the threat of the Soviet Union to one that's designed to deal with the threats of the 21st Century.

If our military was truly "breaking" in Iraq, our operational tempo would be slowing dramatically. Instead, the tempo of operations in Iraq has increased with Operation Matador, Operation Spear, et al. This is the first war we've fought using the principles learned since Mogadishu, and we're still adapting to the realities of 21st Century warfare. Resorting to what is a dramatic and radical change to our entire military infrastructure is an action that won't help us in the short term and would eat away at the espirit de corps and technological excellence that makes our military as deadly as it is. The Joint Chiefs are unanimous in their opposition to a draft, and for very good reason.

I don't think this is possible:

And now to the meat of the matter.  I will support a draft if and when it is universal.  No C.O. status.  No physical deferments.  No student deferments.  No nothing.

It might be, if you had some kind of national service draft, where people could opt to serve in ways, but there are just some people, who aren't going to be capable of serving in the military-there are real disabilities, and to be honest there are some people I wouldn't want in the military (do you think having paranoid schizophrenics on the frontlines is a good idea?).

There is also a place for conscientious objectors-there are some religious groups that truly are pacifist (Amish, Mennonite, Quaker), but during WWII many CO's were still required to serve, but they served in the medical corps where they wouldn't be required to actually fight anyone.

It is going to take a lot more tha what is happening right now to convince me that we should reinstate the draft.

The question is this:  If the very presence of Americans in Iraq is such a colossal instigation for violence, why do you think sending more troops to build on that presence now, after elections have taken place, as Iraq is in the process of forming its own government, as conditions in Iraq are improving with the exception of the insurgency why -- why would that escalation necessarily make things better?  It sounds a little to me like LBJ's strategy, which failed.  Completely.  

So why in the universe do you think we should adopt it now?

A resounding DITTO!

Numbers aren't what are needed or wanted in Afghanistan or Iraq now. They need to project power while making the populace turn their back on the insurgency. That's done by skillful soldiering backed by overwhelming force and equally skillful diplomacy.

As to the difficulties of teaching draftees -- the US has done without the draft for most of it's history. Only in times of major wars has the draft been used. There's a reason for that. A drafted army may be cheaper to assemble, but the costs in lack of preparedness and turnover.

If you "find it difficult to accept the argument that volunteer soldiers do a better job after Abu Ghraib, et al." -- then you obviously haven't studied atrocities done by armies over the years. Abu Ghraib was an poorly trained group of night shifters having what they considered harmless fun. When everything is called an atrocity it's hard to differentiate the power trip pranks like Abu Ghraib from the really nasty stuff. Real atrocities are much worse. The US Army in Europe swept from Normandy to Berlin in less than a year, but it also had to execute nearly 100 of its own for crimes against locals, mostly rape and murder. These are the types of atrocities that will become much more prevalent with a drafted army.

But I do agree on one point -- the military doesn't always get what it wants. Civilian control of the military has a long history is the US. However I would be very surprised if anyone who is responsible for the outcome of military action would actually ponder a draft. The likelihood of good outcomes is just so much lower than with volunteers. Any SecDef or President that reinstitutes the draft will have to live by the outcome -- and the probability of that outcome being bad will be greatly increased.

untrainable.

I think you may have attitude issues with draftees, but there are a lot of men who would probably do fine in the military-they are highly educated but chose to forgo military service, because they had other goals.  

I think the problem with a draft is that do we really want men in the military who do not want to be there?  I imagine that most men would step up to the plate and do fine-and it is doubtful, if a draft was started that the military would need every man drafted-they could probably tell the numbskulls to hit the road-we don't need a million man force now or anytime soon.

are a mild instigator, but their presence right now does have a net increase in Iraqi security-- even if it just slightly outweighs their provoking effect on the insurgency.

Why we need more troops is simple-- beyond security, it is army engineers in coordination with Iraq civilians that are being charged with rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure.  Schools, roads, electricity, sewage.  Right now, they are largely failing to accomplish this or moving staggeringly slowly.  There has been some progress, but it is almost exclusively in the peaceful Kurdish and Shiite sections (which weren't as desperately in need of this infrastructure as post-war Baghdad/Sunni Triangle).

More troops (combined with something like a civil engineering draft) would be able to provide the broad security and manpower needed to get average Iraqis back to a normal life-- which would not only shorten the amount of time we will need to be there, but should also contribute much to the "hearts and minds" battle.

Let us assume that both of you are approximately correct, i.e. both of these things are true:

1. At our current level of commitments, we are grinding our own military into dust
2. Adding large numbers of low-level people who will not stay long will not make things better

Well then, we have stumbled onto the answer to the question, "What is the largest and longest thing we can reasonably take on with the world's only superpower military?"

We always knew it wasn't infinite. Now we know precisely how big it is. That's useful. May our future leaders take heed.

I tend to agree with you that the way out of where we are now is proceed with all deliberate speed with teaching the Iraqis to defend their own country, so that we can leave. We may suffer a bit more "grinding" while that goes on, but it's much more in line with the mission. The object of this was never to occupy Iraq as a colony, it was to get in, remove Mr. Hussein, and then extract ourselves as quickly as events would allow, given that we didn't just come in to wreck the place. We want to leave something behind that the Iraqis can run by themselves. They seem to be well on the way to doing that, so at this point we might as well do it right.

Although to be honest, my own tendency in these matters would be to tell the Iraqis that we must, for domestic political reasons, start removing our troops, and that we will work with them to make an orderly transition, but they simply must get on with the business of preparing their own defenses. This is admittedly a designed kick in the butt, but odds are, one wouldn't hurt.

The puzzling thing for me is that I have seen no evidence that anyone is taking this seriously.  If we need civil engineers in Iraq, there are lots of them in America, over 40 years old, who could be contacted to help provide their expertise.  Nothing so far that I've seen has even hinted at that.  Why?  Nobody knows....

Numbers are precisely what's needed in both theaters right now.  The line that we're adequately manned -- or ever have been -- is mere cant for the politically-motivated.  The central strategic problem for our war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan is and has been insufficient American and Western manpower.  The key to defeating insurgencies, as you note, is winning over the populace.  Historical experience strongly suggests that this is best done through a pervasive, persistent, locally-based small-unit infantry presence concentrated in insurgent base areas; this in turn backed up by heavy units on-call as needed.  Does this characterize our operations in Iraq?  In Afghanistan?  No?  Why not?

It's not because the US military doesn't understand the above.

Finally, your accusation of historical ignorance is misguided on two counts.  First, because I wasn't making an assertion about the relative merits of various "atrocities," but of the relative merits of conscripts to volunteers in that regard; second, because your own historical assertion that the draft was only used in time of "major war" is outright false.  Unless you subscribe to the idea that the years 1940 through 1972(?) were ones of unremitting major warfare, which would be a surprise to us all.

Institute a draft, lose support for the entire war on terror.

The Conservative movement has committed to the claim that this a war that we can win 1) without a draft and 2) on a board that is markedly different than wars in the past.

The war against terror is a war being fought in banks as much as it is one being fought in Fallujah.  

The Bush Administration will essentially admit that Iraq was a failure, which will turn public favor from overall disapproval to out and out hostility toward Iraq and whatever initiatives, like the war on terror, are an extension of that.

Me about Iraq isn't manpower, in terms of ground forces.  It's that I don't believe most Americans really think there is a war going on (except for the families who have dead sons and daughters coming back.)  We haven't done anything to mobilize nationally to support the war.  Look at the pissant efforts to even get money and supplies looking trying to help soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Sure, there was an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, then a few people had a crappy advertisement on their websites, but all of that is gone now.  My real sense is that Americans have a kind of deep ambivalence about the war -- first because they are living in a quasi-realisitc state of denial about it, and second because they don't think we should be having one at all.  So, apart from a few dedicated people, not many average Americans feel much impetus to do anything at all.  Everyone has forgotten about Iraq and gone back to worrying about the pH balance of their summer pool water, and the war is just an annoying nettlesome distraction now.  It's like a sideshow that nobody is paying attention to.  It's surreal.

And I would really appreciate a plausible explanation why.....having more U.S. troops in Iraq would help this situation?

See my reply to Buckland above.

Are you honestly asserting that it is the American troops who are not doing their jobs well enough?

On a per-man basis, of course they are.  This isn't a question of the quality of the individual American soldier: it's a question of whether there are enough of them.

That they are not training Iraqi troops to take control over their own country?

How's that been going?

Let's speculate -- what would happen if the United States decided to send another 100,000 troops to Iraq tomorrow.

Then we would be at the minimum force level that competent strategists estimated at the get-go would be necessary to occupy Iraq.

Is there any evidence that those troops would be doing a more effective job in the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis?

Yes, thanks.  

The British have done such a wonderful job in Basra....

Come now, Kowalski.  First, and I ask for heuristic purposes only, is Basra representative of the rest of the country?  Second, are you aware of the state of law and order in Basra these days?

Do you honestly believe that a new influx of American troops to Iraq would scare the people coming across the border to fight Americans, or further embolden them?

Heh.  Surely you're not arguing that we don't want to provoke the jihadis?

....Rumsfeld's prescription has been to use the minimum number of American forces possible to get the job done.

Which is why we're using the maximum number of American forces possible in-theater, right?  Whatever.

....Iraq is now a sovereign nation, so why should we send more troops to help their own people defend it?

How deeply dishonest.  We invade, do our part to create the situation, and suddenly, whoa, it's their problem?  Markos Moulitsas agrees with you; I feel a bit more responsibility.

In fact, I think you're dead wrong.

You can't be right all the time, I guess.

The fact is that our "exit strategy" in the short term is exactly what it always has been - get the Iraqi military ready enough to start providing for their own defense. A draft won't help us in Iraq - by the time we can get one going we should be able to begin drawing down our forces as the Iraqis replace coalition troops.

Personally I think we're closer to this point than many think. Rumsfeld made the point today that our troop strength has been lowered over the last year. I think it will continue to fall until within about 2 years it's in an advisory (and possibly air support) role only.

The Shiite community is pretty united that the insurgency has to stop. With the numbers, the military, and American equipment they would be able to stop the insurgency. Shiites can be pretty good at these things -- think Iran in the early 80's.

However the amount and type of force that they would use is not what we would want to associate with the US role in Iraq. Paradoxically our role right now in Iraq may be saving the insurgency from confronting a foe that has no qualms about using torture and massacre as tools of suppression.

If the very presence of Americans in Iraq is such a colossal instigation for violence....

Your argument, not mine.  I tend to find them a force for peace there.

....conditions in Iraq are improving with the exception of the insurgency....

Ha ha.  Gaah.

Can someone tell me how a Draft is any worse than the deliberate targeting of Junior HighSchool Students?

I don't know about the rest of you but I have seen Recruiters show up in the Internet Game Worlds like Everquest and Diablo. The aggressive methods they use on teenagers is beyond compare.

Is THIS what a volunteer army supposed to be?

All that is what I have been told, Trevino.  Here and elsewhere, and by this administration.  So maybe the Administration is all wrong and you are right.  I guess we're going to find out, because as far as I can tell, you have no power to influence anything.

would be ineffective without real and broad security, which our level of troops cannot sustain across the country.  They'd be sitting ducks without a real army presence, and we barely have enough of that to keep central Baghdad secure.

More troops would give us a shield under which we can begin to provide those services.  There is something similar going on right now with the oil fields and pipelines, but sadly Iraqi utilities are not as large of a priority.

Even with large American troops presence, the construction would be vulnerable to sabotage.  But I tend to think that Iraqis will be far more outraged at the insurgency when it's destroying their clean water supply, vs. destroying an oil pipeline whose US protection is viewed very cynically.

We do not want a draft because it pulls in people who do not want to fight for this country.  We do not need a draft, we need Congress to allow troops now in reserves or guard the ability to go back to active. We don't need the draft because the wave of 9-11 kids has not yet hit recruitment age.  My son is 15 and joined HS ROTC two years ago.  That was when the 9-11 wave hit the high schoolers and participation in ROTCS programs sky rocketed.  We have two more years before that wave hits.

Be patient, don't panic, stay the course.

Regardless of your support (or lack thereof) for the Iraq war, the reality is that Americans are growing more and more uneasy with the war and the reasons why we fought it. The only way I see the draft being reinstated in the next 10 years is a war with China over Taiwan, a 2nd Korean War or (God forbid) a nuke go off in any major city.

Just thank your preferred diety that Kerry was not elected last year. He would of screwed Iraq up so much by now he would have to reinstate the draft (think Johnson and McNamara)

 

When was the last time you saw Bush urge anyone to enlist?

The thing is Bush, Cheney and Karl Rove are caught in a quandary. How do you get anyone to go when you won't go yourself? I can just see a kid saying, "I have better things to do", to the Draft Board. It becomes even more embarrassing when Bush has those Twins to send to Iraq. Fat Chance they would go.

The White House has no choice except silence. Let the Recruiters do the job.

I won't comment on the meat of the argument at this point, but I would like to mention the results of the AP/Ipsos poll from June 20-22.

"If you had a son who was the right age to serve in the military, would you encourage him to enlist in the  military now or would you discourage him from enlisting in the military now?"

Encourage - 32%

Discourage - 55%

Neither - 12%

Unsure - 1%

"If you had a daughter who was the right age to serve in the military, would you encourage her to enlist in the military now or would you discourage her from enlisting in the military now?"

Encourage - 22%

Discourage - 66%

Neither - 11%

Unsure - 1%

"Do you favor or oppose the reinstatement of the military draft in the United States?"

Favor - 27%

Oppose - 70%

Unsure - 4%

"If the military draft were reinstated, would you favor or oppose drafting women as well as men?"

Favor - 43%

Oppose - 54%

Unsure - 3%

....a draft isn't compatible with the way we currently fight wars....[T]he Army has been refocusing on the threat of unconventional warfare.

This is sort of right, but mostly wrong.  First of all, the notion that a draft force is incompatible with the demands of counterinsurgency is deeply wrong.  Our last draftee Army destroyed the Viet Cong and increased the control of the Saigon government from c.20% of its territory to c.80% before withdrawal -- at which time the Communists were forced to pursue the war with regular NVA units.  So let's not pretend that only volunteers can win this thing.  Second, while you're right that the Army has been paying attention to MOUT, it's not quite correct that pre-Iraq, it was uniquely focusing on "unconventional warfare."  You might as well have made the same claim c.1963 with the establishment of the Green Berets.  The Army is the Army, and while Rumsfeld certainly has his erratic vision for it, it doesn't follow that since the end of the Cold War it's done anything but try to figure how to maintain optempo with less.

A draft isn't going to fix this problem. It takes too long to train draftees into competent soldiers.

Sorry, but where's the evidence that a draftee is less able to master soldiering than a volunteer, or at the same rates?  Did they shorten Basic and AIT and all the service schools post-1972 once those unmotivated draftees were out of the way?

Conscripts can't be plopped into a modern battlefield straight out of basic and expect to integrate into a modern military unit.

Of course.  No one can.  That's why the Army sends you to AIT.

A draft won't help us in Iraq - by the time we can get one going we should be able to begin drawing down our forces as the Iraqis replace coalition troops.

While I hope you're right, let's note that none of the timetables for this ephemeral drawdown have proven remotely realistic -- remember, we're supposed to be down to c.30,000 men now -- and I would think that reasonable folks would at this point shy away from predictions based on pure optimism.  Let's start planning for contingencies, yes?

If our military was truly "breaking" in Iraq, our operational tempo would be slowing dramatically.

A total non sequitur.

....we're still adapting to the realities of 21st Century warfare.

You realize this is meaningless cant, yes?  What exactly is "21st Century warfare" about the insurrection in Iraq?  Seems pretty standard insurgency to me.

The Joint Chiefs are unanimous in their opposition to a draft, and for very good reason.

That reason being, their only experience of it was in its disastrous late-Indochina years.

I'm in no position to help those who take the Administration at face value.  That's something even Republicans shouldn't do.

Another interesting Gallup poll from June 16-19:

"If you had a son or daughter who was planning to enter the military, would you support that step or would you suggest a different occupation?"

Support That Step - 51%

Suggest Different Occupation - 48%

Unsure - 1%

(I think the above question is somewhat unfair. Parents like to be encouraging of their children.)

"Would you favor or oppose requiring every able-bodied young man in this country, when he reaches the age of 18, to spend one year in military training and then join the reserves?"

Favor - 35%

Oppose - 62%

Unsure - 3%

What is most telling, I think, is the response to the same question in December 1955:

Favor - 69%

Oppose - 23%

Unsure - 8%

My how the times have changed.

All the whining about the methods of recruiters from the soccer mom contingent is getting pretty freaking old.  This is the price they pay for no draft.  And it's a small one.  Vanishingly small.

It is not possible for anyone including Kerry to screw Iraq up more than Bush. Would Kerry cut a BILLION Dollars off Veteran's Affairs? Would Kerry STILL have Rumsfeld working for him? Nope. That's Bush.

The case you make is very persuasive, but . . .

What if the goal of Rumsfeld and the chain of command is to begin the slow withdrawal very soon? By this I mean that as the constitutional process, and political developments proceed (a big if), and as Iraqi force training continues, the US soon and slowly and unannounced, begins pullout out town by town, city by city? We are approaching the cusp of these events.

The only democrat who I've heard through the noise who even hinted at this is Senator Levin - it's there problem, we don't want to occupy indefinitely, etc...

This policy has many advantages in not being announced, but it argues against increasing troop levels.

The problem of course is it appears as a retreat under fire. But, the good news is how successful the efforts have been to pacify Al-Sadr's crowd in the slums, how united the Kurds remain, and how restrained all the shiites have been.

Adding troops upsets this environment.

The obvious problem is it risks civil war, which is the nub of the specific anti-draft issue here - why should there be a draft to prevent an Iraqi civil war? That would be a tough sell.

Generally, though, we need greater force levels for all the reasons listed, independent of the next year or two in Iraq.

This is to be expected.  Doesn't alter the argument that it is the right thing to do for the Army, though.

Politically, well, I'm not going to grow old waiting for courage from the current crop of leaders.

The 9/11 kids are going to give us a recruiting surge?  I'd like to see that one.

....though I am convinced Kerry was more than ready to withdraw from Iraq without regard to the Iraqis left behind, the irony is that for the Army as an institution, this might have been the preferable option.

 Either your judgement was faulty or there are certain limits that they will not cross that you go past.

Either everyone...And I do mean "everyone" is elegible, or it won't fly with me.

You go where they send you, do what they tell you, and sleep when they let you.

I'll go along with a "deferment" for the mentally challenged who can't be trained to pick up litter on the drill field, or brass at the range.

Either we all are equal or we're not.  If we are, everyone goes who possibly can.  The "physically challenged?"  We have lots and lots of clerk-typist type positions.  Or programmers.  Or whatever.

I'm down with a universal service requirement.  But when you say "Selective" Service, you are out of line.  

Freedom isn't free.  But it's not "Selective" either.  I don't get any more rights for serving, so there shouldn't be exceptions for the priviliged, blind, lame, mute, or whatever.  We all have the same Liberty.  And the same obligations.

And that's the name of that tune.

 Which, of course, is one more reason Americans in general hate nation building. It still boggles me how Bush could sound so adamant in 2000 about it and do such a volte face. It's not like he was a PNAC guy to begin with, but he has been completely coopted by them.

I have 3 cousins, like brothers to me, who have all joined the Army since the invasion of Afghanistan. One finished his tour in Fallujah just 2 weeks before all hell broke lose there last year.

There are and always will be plenty of patriotic young Americans willing to sign up to fight for their country. It offers tremendous advantages to them for the rest of their lives. Some still go there one step ahead of juvenile detention, others because they've played "Army" since they were 5, others for the training or to get out of the ghetto. We may be having a temporary recruiting slump right now, but I have no fear the numbers will pick back up again. Particularly if the media would stop slandering our troops.

So please, instead of giving aid and comfort to Charlie Rangel, target the many who slander the very concept of military service, fight against the universities who won't allow ROTC or military recruiters on campus, and anybody who looks down on the men and women who risk their lives for us.

....caused by what, exactly?  The war, yes?

Don't tell me you think this is all the media's doing.

As a Civil Engineer I worked on many projects in the Middle East. I never traveled to see the projects I worked on.... no women allowed.

I worked in the states with 100's of engineers on these projects. The vast majority of the design work can be done here, it's the construction mangement that's the security problem.

I am one of the over 40 you mention and as a civilian I would provide my services gratis if asked.

There is a draft for people with special skills already in the works.

The government is taking the first steps toward a targeted military draft of Americans with special skills in computers and foreign languages

.

This is different than what I think you are suggesting. Civilian support vs drafting people with special skills.

Since you're getting such a thrill out of kicking around my comments here:

If we truly need to reinstate the draft to win the war and increase "American involvement" as you're arguing for, why are none of the people in command of the armed forces even broaching the subject seriously?  Are they all just deluded?  Is it peer pressure?  They're not allowed to say certain things or admit they've said them?  A conspiracy of secrecy, an oath of "our way, at any cost, even if it means we lose!"

I mean, Josh, what you're arguing for here doesn't make any sense.  We've sent troops to Iraq and defeated all of their armed forces handily, and now we're facing somewhere between 10-30,000 insurgents (if you take the upper estimates) and now, at this point, it's time to reinstate the draft?  

I suppose you guess that the insurgency is going to continue for so long at its current strength that the current troop levels are incapable of defeating it, even with new Iraqi forces brought to bear.  Is that so?  

Sorry here is the link for the selective draft

...proceed with all deliberate speed with teaching the Iraqis to defend their own country, so that we can leave....

As shown here (hat tip:  Van Steenwyk).  Largest organized assault in months and it was defeated by policemen with no help from the multinationals.  Progress.  But let's not let that get in the way of Trevino's crusade to see a draft reinstituted.

....to see why the military itself isn't agitating for a draft.  Several factors collude:

1.  Those still on active duty who remember the previous draft remember its latter years, when it was a source of division in American society and terribly bad PR for the military.
   
2.  It is not their place to publicly advocate such policies in the first place.
   
3.  The present Secretary of Defense has a track record of professionally humiliating and even dismissing those who deviate from his line.  See one Eric Shinseki.

I suppose you guess that the insurgency is going to continue for so long at its current strength that the current troop levels are incapable of defeating it, even with new Iraqi forces brought to bear.

Current troop levels won't defeat it, no.  And yes, it can certainly continue on for quite some time -- the rest of the decade, even.  As for the new Iraqi forces coming online, I will wait and see.  There's little there to impress so far.  Prudent planning demands a known quantity -- in this case, the American soldier.

Yeah, "no help from the multinationals" because said multinationals ran into an effective insurgent blocking force on the way.

Don't get me wrong, it's good that the police held out and repelled the attack, but portraying this as unvarnished good news -- trouble you at all that the bad guys are mounting these operations in the capital? -- is just foolish.

since he'll be effectively proven utterly wrong.  Of course, until that day he'll stay on message and only after that day will he pick up the "It Could Have Been Better" banner.

Isn't that great? You have to go over to the UK to read about that, and even then the "journalist" paints it as a victory for the insurgents.

I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding what's best for the military. I'm just reporting. Consider me FOX News - I'll report, y'all decide. I haven't opined on the issue yet, and I may not. It's something I haven't made up a complete opinion about yet.

Policemen.  Not infantry.  Not special forces.  Not U.S. grunts.  Policemen.  

You want to know what is foolish?  Leaving out the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the post-Spanish Philippines War, and the near insignificance of conscription during the Civil War.  Now that's foolish.

I have been running into this alot lately.  I am most likely in the same place Trevino is in his views on this war.  But I do find myself wondering at many of the "support the troops" magnets, or rather some of the people who buy them: slap them on their cars and drive away not really thinking about it much after that.

It is terrible to me.   Silly as it is, I feel like I should sacrifice somehow, I don't drive my car very much to conserve gas, and have this urge to plant a victory garden.  I know that sounds almost sarcastic, but perhaps being raised by parents and grandparents who remember what it meant to really sacrifice for the war stuck with me.  I work with veterans groups in my little city, even something as safe as that doesn't garner much support.  I don't understand it.

Is that I hope you're wrong.  Because I don't think reinstating the draft will help us in Iraq by one iota.  I think it will make the war more unpopular than it already is, and I can't see how anyone can claim that training those troops in time to get there and move them into the country so that they could be effective in time to do anything meaningful against the insurgency is possible.  

The most important milestones in Iraq, it seems to me, are being measured now in months, not years.  Even if we could reinstate the draft now, and even assuming that more troops would have been beneficial, I don't understand how you propose to get them there in time to do much good.

I know that Democrats have been calling for the reinstatement of the draft since before the war began.  And, truth to tell, I would agree to a form of the draft -- one based on mandatory service in the military for all Americans of age, men and women alike, a-la Israel.  In fact, I wish that had been the policy when I graduated high school; I think everyone could benefit from 2 years in the service.  

But try hard as I might, I just can't share your pessimism that this war is unwinnable without it right now.  I truly believe, and it may just be a kind of blind faith right now, that the Iraqi people want to have sovereignty over their own country and that the vast majority of them wish to see the insurgents defeated, and that's what we should be concentrating on encouraging.  And I completely agree with PatHMV that we should be working much help our military recruiters here in the U.S. to relieve the strain.  

People really aren't talking much about the idea that the largest danger to American troops in Iraq passed a long time ago.  It just seems counterproductive to me that we should panic in the way your suggestion sounds to me.

Guerrillas are repelled by policemen who appear to have (though the article is not explicit) M60-style machine guns.  These same guerrillas mount an effective blocking operation against bona fide American soldiers.  Now, what does this tell us about the policemen in question?

Which is to say, I'm not sure you're making the point you think you are.

As far as "leaving out" the Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Philippine Insurrection, I leave it to you to peer through the mists of history and figure out what the level of popular support was for each.  That you don't understand why none were invoked isn't particularly a problem for me.  Finally, re: the "near insignificance" of conscription in the Civil War, two questions -- first, did the leadership at the time on both or either sides find it so; second, assuming you are completely correct, does that wholly invalidate the argument presented?  I'm pretty sure the answer to the second bit is "no."

A Draft would be a good thing BEFORE the war. Can you imagine Bush sending his kids to Iraq? How about those Top 1% who support Bush? This nonsense happened because people who never fought before like Karl Rove decided to send other people's kids into harms way.

There should be a Law that a President's First Born should enlist. THAT will ensure competent Leadership.

for the report. I was surprised at the difference in the numbers for gender

Hagel has, basically, only recently popped up on my personal radar.  I don't know that much about him.

Why do you think he's a fool?

Thanks -

I don't think you should go back to Democratic Underground.  Your posts are always exceedingly well-thought out and composed and I know you put a lot of effort into them.  Which is one of the reasons I disagree so strongly with some of them, but that doesn't mean I want you to stop writing them.  :)

I know it wasn't you who said that to the person who had it said to him, so no worries.  And thanks.

....back when all I knew about him was his gadflying of the Administration on DOD-related points.  And he can be a good gadfly.  But once my eyes were opened (by Augustine, really) on Hagel's essential spinelessness -- and sorry, but I think defending Taiwan is really a no-brainer -- I came to see him for what he mostly is: a prairie isolationist throwback whose foreign policy is, if it can be characterized at all, basically mercantilist.

I'm trying to pick out other metrics which may have been overlooked. One may be the gap in time between announced or planned events.

So far there has been an invasion, an appointment of the interim (Allawi), an election, a seating of the elected, and next - meetings for the constitution, followed by permanent parliamentary elections.

It seems the worst of the setbacks are at the midpoints between these events - Kidnapping/Beheadings; Abu G.; Fallujah conquest; now car bombings.

Some of the effect is simply media attention, but others may not be random.

We ramped up for the invasion and elections, and have tried meagre w/drawals in the interims. I don't think there is another ramping up coming (the effect of the training), but I think scaling back is ahead. Also, the negotiations may start buying peace in select areas to allow small drawdowns.

It is a plan, while the insurgency seems to be lurching, although with horrible effect. I think this is what Cheney sees, and simply hopes it's the last lurch.

I'm not "chief" and I've seen no one here tell you go back to DU(thanks for putting that in the REDHOT where only the annointed can respond).  The closest mention I've seen to DU was a mention of Kos which you made.  You can cop an attitude while you preach from your high horse about all the things we little people can't understand but you're not omniscient.  In fact I'd save your OP as an example of someone who knows just enough to convince themselves their opinion is the right and proper one.

Revolutionary War.  Sure there were loyalist sympathizers but the idea of revolution was a popular one dating all the way back to the Jenkins' Ear war and subsequent conflicts when the Brits forced colonialists to return captured territory.  It was a popular war and if you're going to honestly contend that it wasn't then maybe you should keep the dismissiveness a few more days.  You'll need it.  States had conscription in the war but nothing was dictated from the national government.  You know...the one that wrote the Declaration.

War of 1812.  Again, a popular war.  British impressment and privateering were played up in the press and public sentiment supported war.  And again, no conscription.

Civil War.  Around 5% of the North's soldiers were conscripted and it prompted massive draft riots.  It was a war that had a draft but a fairly insignificant draft for the North.  For the South, conscription played a much larger part in their force but they lost so I don't really care how it played there.

War in the Philippines.  It was a popular war.  The U.S. managed to support a large(for that time, 70,000+) overseas deployment for over a decade without a draft.  Sure there were anti-imperialists that opposed it but it was favored by the public atleast until the brutal policies surrounding the Moro uprising.  Again, no conscription.

Now, again, please explain why leaving these out was not foolish.  I'm interested in what you see when you "peer through the mists of history" with your acute vision.

As for the news report, you can focus on whatever angle you want.  Given your current crusade all I can say is I'm not surprised you think cutting off a road with car bombs is the paramount fact cited.  But let's see.  Cops hold off guerilla fighters.  Fifty-five calls from ordinary citizens relaying tactical information.  Ordinary citizens joining the fight against the guerillas.  About 50% of the assaulting force killed or captured.  Pride shown by the Iraqi commander.  Woe is me.  Where do I sign up for your draft, Trev?

Historical experience strongly suggests that this is best done through a pervasive, persistent, locally-based small-unit infantry presence concentrated in insurgent base areas; this in turn backed up by heavy units on-call as needed.  Does this characterize our operations in Iraq?  In Afghanistan?  No?  Why not?

Please elaborate. I thought this was what we were doing.

While I was opposed to the war from the start, I sure kept my mouth shut around the time of the election. I really wanted it to work, and I hoped it would. Now it's clear to me that Democracy does not by itself foster peace. I still respect the war supporters who are in touch with reality. A draft or withdrawal is the reality. Personally I favor the latter, but mainly because, in all honesty, I am afraid to fight there.

I'm inclined to disagree with Trevino on the general thrust of his argument (i.e. draft=never gonna happen), but I have to concede that many of his points are sound.

Now he and I (and others) are of different opinions on the war, but you can't say he's wrong that people don't want to enlist because they just don't want to go to war.  People can be patriotic without being crazy.  I read LTC Grossman's book, too, and it's kind of shocking to realize the lengths men will go to on the battlefield to NOT shoot at their enemy.

I agree with kowalski that Americans are insulated from war, slapping yellow ribbons on their cars and forgetting about it.  Trevino might want to debate the level of commitment of the average American, but I think it's pretty self-evident.  For what it's worth, that's both a good thing and a bad thing.  There is no form of mandatory national service, and we have seen the risks inherent in that.

We can bandy around statistics and facts about events in Iraq and never come to an agreement, construing a multitude of these facts a million different ways.  And threads like this can go on until the last American leaves Iraq, hanging off the skids of a helicopter lifting off from the roof of the American embassy.

I would, however, like someone to remind me why we decimated the ranks of our Army over a decade ago to save money.  And, as per smagar's diary earlier today, how good a job are we doing of rotating, resting, and refitting the troops we have now?

the constitution are the big events looming.  So 08/05(constitution is finalized), 10/05(ratification is voted on), and 01/06(elections).  Atleast 3 more chances to hear how all is doomed.

The DU comment wasn't in comments here.  You noticed.

I gotta say, your grasp of American history isn't what it ought to be.  The Revolution, for example, is estimated to have commanded the active support of roughly 1/3 of the colonists, with another 1/3 opposed, and 1/3 of wavering loyalty -- it was hardly a universally popular cause.  The War of 1812 was only popular in the south and west; the New England states, by contrast, continued trading with the British and contemplated secession.  The Philippine Insurrection resulted, among other things, in the uproar over the Samar atrocities; its growing unpopularity was quelled in no small part by Roosevelt's unilateral declaration of victory (in 1902, I think).

Finally, regarding the police action that's exciting you so -- and hey, why not focus on a single anecdote versus the big picture? -- it's great that good things happened there.  Yes, the police ended up repelling the attack.  Bravo.  But what do we learn from the guerrillas' ability to have mounted such an operation in the first place?  (I'm not sure you really grasp the significance of the blocking force here, but we'll let that go.)  Any ideas, chief?

Our forces aren't locally-based, nor pervasive, nor persistent.  The model here is the Marine CAP program from Vietnam.

 We have to remember that the idea of a 'preemptive' war is not one that's been embraced by America in it's history. No one in the Clinton Administration (and, frankly, not many conservatives either) were thinking in the direction that the PNAC crew were. In fact, compared to, say, the pre-Civil War state of the Army, you can see that Clinton and the Congress left the Army MUCH more prepared. The ONLY rationales in which they're not prepared are the total war and the preemptive war with a bonus time-insensitive occupation.

 As far as how we're doing, I'd characterize the statements coming from the military as that they can do what they're doing now for a while, but they can't take on anything extra. This, to me, is VERY worrying since we still have North Korea making noise and increased unrest in Afghanistan - not saying anything about the growing civil war in Iraq.

Of course, we lost the war in Vietnam despite our military victories - and we incurred 54,000 American casualties in the process.

We're facing a new kind of warfare. This is much like the insurgency in Vietnam except for the fact that there's 24-hour news coverage, the Internet, and the technology of warfare has taken a quantum leap in the intervening 30 years. We've adapted quite well to the changing nature of the threat, but we can't expect some shmuck from off the street to suddenly become part of an effective American battle force. Even after Basic and AIT, it stil isn't feasible to argue that a conscript is going to be effective.

A draft doesn't fix our short-term problem. I doubt it's going to fix our long-term problem.

The problem is that we spent the last 15 years eviscerating our military. A draft won't fix that problem, and has a good chance of exacerbating it.

I'm not saying it's all the media's fault, though I do believe they play a role.

But it's not all the war, either, not in the sense that potential soldiers are too scared of dying to sign up.

We haven't seen that much of an increased recruiting effort (though maybe they're advertising on MTV and I'm missing it). We haven't seen ads with President Bush going "I want you" to bring democracy and stability to the world. Of course, we haven't seen these kind of ads in part because the head of the Department of Defense believes that we don't need more soldiers (a subject of vigorous debate on both sidees by serious, studied people in and out of the military).

Myself, I'm far more concerned about the lack of trained MPs and interpreters than I am about the lack of infantry. Secretary Rumsfeld's reshaping policies do call for increasing the number of those kinds of soldiers in the future, as I understand them. We have to root out insurgents who look just like the people we are trying to protect, and who are living among those innocent people. We're in a highly urban environment, where we can't easily call in air strikes. We did a good job in Fallujah, but we can't empty out every problem city, destroy it, and then let the innocents back in.

We need soldiers who are always wary but still able to gain the trust of local inhabitants and be nice to the little kids. That means we need cops, not infantry. And of course they need to be able to speak the language. None of that will be supplied simply by drafting people, and reinstating the draft would cause all sorts of social upheavals, bringing with it so many new problems.

We did lose, yes -- but that doesn't affect the argument here, which is that conscripts can conduct counterinsurgency.  On which subject, if you're going to insist it's so without evidence, there's not much counterargument I can offer that I haven't already.  You generally don't make it through the Army's system of schooling without achieving some basic competence in what the Army wants you to know.  If you think a volunteer will yield a qualitatively -- and meaningfully -- better result than a conscript, I guess that's what you think.  Me, I'll look to the actual history of conscripts in American history.

You're right that American battle technology has changed.  But the insurgents are not mounting a campaign that is terribly different from guerrilla efforts of the past half-century.  Sure, there are tactical advances, notably in detonator tech; and yes, Zarqawi does pop up online; but bombings and assassinations and ambushes are not new.  The war, and the threat, are not particularly "21st century."  If anything, we've seen this before.

I just graduated from high school this past May--it ain't happening.

roughly 1/3 of the colonists, with another 1/3 opposed, and 1/3 of wavering loyalty

Yes, that comes from a John Adams quote and is usually cited by people on the internet despite the fact that it describes, generally, the state of things prior to the war.  And that trumps the history of discontent after the Jenkins' Ear war, Louisberg, and all the other outrages noted in the colonial press leading up to the Revolutionary War?

universally popular cause

So that's the benchmark now?  Should we go back and reconsider your list then?    

The War of 1812 was only popular in the south and west; the New England states, by contrast, continued trading with the British and contemplated secession

And what happened to the participants of the Hartford Convention?  The war was unpopular with the merchants who lived off trading with Britain.  They didn't care about occassional loss of property but even the NE was outraged about impressment.

The Philippine Insurrection resulted, among other things, in the uproar over the Samar atrocities; its growing unpopularity was quelled in no small part by Roosevelt's unilateral declaration of victory (in 1902, I think)

Actually, the pacification of Samar was popular.  The American public demanded retaliation after the massacre of U.S. soldiers.  The anti-imperialists didn't get much out of it.  Things changed after the wholesale slaughters of 1906-08.  

But re-reading your OP you said "for the duration of the war" so I'll drop the Philippines since it dragged on for quite some time.

Finally, regarding the police action that's exciting you so -- and hey, why not focus on a single anecdote versus the big picture? -- it's great that good things happened there.

Why do you think I'm excited about that one anecdote?  I posted it to someone who mentioned the need to have Iraqis take more responsibility.  And what "big picture" would you be referring to?  I don't watch or read the MSM so maybe I've missed the "big picture" assessments by the professionals.

Yes, the police ended up repelling the attack.  Bravo.  But what do we learn from the guerrillas' ability to have mounted such an operation in the first place?  (I'm not sure you really grasp the significance of the blocking force here, but we'll let that go.)  Any ideas, chief?

We learn that there were atleast 100 yahoos in Bagdhad who couldn't successfully assault a police station.  Did I miss something?  Is the ability to mass into groups a sign of impending doom?  Are you one of those people who thought Lightning would turn the city into Brussels?  What's the significance of the "blocking action"?  The article merely states 3 suicide car bombers blocking a route.  Is the significance that they had a map?  Or reconnoitred preferred routes?  Or is it that despite delaying aid they still failed?  Hrmmmmm.

Really, lay off the "chief".  You deride anyone who doesn't merrily hop onto your coattails.  You call people "cheerleaders", non-adults, detached from reality, claim they get their news solely from the administration...all for disagreeing with you.  The horror.  

Would be to pull out prematurely.  Surest way to push that from a possiblity to a probability is to completely destroy any support for the action.  Surest way to destroy that support, a draft.
-bro

Behind institution a draft - politically at least - is that I can't see anyone with a family member who gets drafted supporting the war.  A family who has a loved one or friend drafted and then killed will be even less likely to vote for the current administration.  At best, if the Republicans manage to sweep again in '06, a draft will be something to consider.  By then, they'll be so firmly locked in their power base that they can call for a draft while holding Congressional Committees naked without fear of losing the vote.

The draft is political suicide because it's easier to say, "I support the war" when you have the smallest stake in it.  Drafting immediately ups that stake for everyone draft age and makes the public much more jumpy in general - next time a soldier comes back in a flag drapped coffin it might be someone you know.

Combine this with poll numbers showing fast fading support for the war and you've got a recipe for disaster.  There will not be a draft regardless of how much we might need, or think we need, one.

And that trumps the history of discontent after the Jenkins' Ear war, Louisberg, and all the other outrages noted in the colonial press leading up to the Revolutionary War?

How tiresome.  You tell me.  Does it?  Did I research the battalion staff ride at Cowpens for nothing?  Ha.  So it seems.  But yes, we can quibble at length about these points -- including your incredible misreading of New England c. 1812 -- at length so long as it distracts from the main point at hand: namely, Iraq.  On which....

Why do you think I'm excited about that one anecdote?

Tedious tenacity on the subject?

I don't watch or read the MSM....

You don't say.

We learn that there were atleast 100 yahoos in Bagdhad who couldn't successfully assault a police station.  Did I miss something?  Is the ability to mass into groups a sign of impending doom?

Sane people tend to think that "the ability to mass into groups," when said massing people are well-armed and have a rehearsed tactical plan that achieves some measure of success, is problematic, yes.

What's the significance of the "blocking action"?

Apparently this needs spelling out.  It signifies a few things on the part of the enemy, actually.  First, a level of operational sophistication that average guerrillas don't always display.  Second, a familiarity with our tactical SOP.  Third, a knowledge of our staging areas.  Fourth, a knowledge of our routes.  Fifth, an effective battlefield surveillance capability.  Sixth, a knowledge of our specific force packages, and a concurrent ability to counter them.  Seventh, the potential to put the prior six factors to better use the next time around: for starters, by using the attack as bait, and mounting an ambush of the QRF instead of just deploying a blocking force.

Yeah, this is worrisome.

You call people "cheerleaders", non-adults, detached from reality, claim they get their news solely from the administration...all for disagreeing with you.

To be specific: for disagreeing with me badly.  I direct you to Leon H's latest post on detainees as an example of doing it well.

"the idea of a 'preemptive' war is not one that's been embraced by America in it's history"

Way back in the parent post is the discussion about the two wars of national survival - Civil & WWII.  While Bush has publicly stated the preemptive doctrine, I think that is far more for public diplomatic effect, than military doctrine. Almost by definition, if it's not for survival, it's elective, and if it is elective, it's basically to pre-empt something.

Granted, most of the small conflicts since WWII have been more like battles or "police actions", but even Vietnam and Korea differed in cause (clear invasion repulsion in one, not in the other) but not policy (containment).

To the extent the balkans operations under Clinton succeeded, they still continue, and some websites are very negative about developments in Bosnia and Kosovo - so what happens if we have to return there? Is that a separate war, or just more of this one, particularly if the same enemy fighter oppose us.

For the time being we've forced the fight in Iraq, but it will likely pop up elsewhere if we leave. The mess is trying to snuff the civil war/crush or pacify the Baathists, AND keep fighting Al Qaeda mercenaries. Doing both in Iraq may prove impossible.

Yes, further reason for a draft, no. I know you understand that both sides in a conflict will adapt and become better at what they do, so this isn't a surprising development.  The Iraqi forces becoming more effective should be surprising to you, as it seems they are rather left out of your equations of our success.
-bro

How tiresome.  You tell me.  Does it?  Did I research the battalion staff ride at Cowpens for nothing?  Ha.  So it seems.  But yes, we can quibble at length about these points -- including your incredible misreading of New England c. 1812 -- at length so long as it distracts from the main point at hand: namely, Iraq.  On which...

Apparently so if you think the Adams' quote was germane.  "Misreading"?  How so?  Was impressment viewed benignly in the northeast?  It(and quartering) was a main gripe during the Revolutionary War and it continued afterwards.

Tedious tenacity on the subject?

One mention and it's "tedious tenacity".  You're easily impressed if nothing else.

You don't say.

Yup.  You want my blog list?  I let the rabid partisans on both sides separate the chaff for me when it comes to the MSM.  Besides, the war critics here are pretty mild compared to ATol or the AFP which is picked up at Spacewar.  You go right ahead deligently ingesting ABC, CNN, Fox, NYT, etc. and I'll be the one not posting about a draft every 3 weeks.

Sane people tend to think that "the ability to mass into groups," when said massing people are well-armed and have a rehearsed tactical plan that achieves some measure of success, is problematic, yes.

So, you're one of the sane people?  Just checking.  What exactly was the "rehearsed tactical plan"?  You three guys park by the square and blow yourselves up when you see humvees.  We'll be over here driving cars into mud walls.  How is this any different than these operations (which succeeded by the way).  The mujs aren't amoebas afterall.  They can rub sticks together to make fire just like you and I.

Apparently this needs spelling out.  It signifies a few things on the part of the enemy, actually.  First, a level of operational sophistication that average guerrillas don't always display....

Wow, you got all that from a passing mention in a news story?  Quick!  Call Abizaid.  So, you agree that they had to watch the road beforehand.  Don't you remember the hullabaloo about them tracking the routes used by the brass?  Why is this so alarming to an obvious expert such as yourself?  Is this Larry Johnson?  

Yeah, this is worrisome.

I'm sure the Guardian will be glad to know their target readership has increased by one.

To be specific: for disagreeing with me badly.  I direct you to Leon H's latest post on detainees as an example of doing it well

Ahh, so your epithets are meant for a subgroup of people who reply to you.  Yeah, that was so obvious in your various offhand comments in the REDHOT and elsewhere.  How could I have missed that.

First, full disclosure:  I am a Democrat and dKos regular.

That said, I agree with Trevino on the following:

(a) The U.S. has a moral obligation to stabilize Iraq if possible.

(b) The U.S. forces in Iraq have been insufficient to occupy the country from the get-go.

(c) Absent a draft, the U.S. cannot provide the necessary numbers to secure Iraq.

Now, why can't the all-volunteer military get the job done?  Simply put, the people who support the war refuse to sign up.  Now, why is that?

Well, I think you can break Americans generally down into 3 groups.  First are the left-leaners who either never supported the war or feel lied to.  They aren't going to sign up in significant numbers.

Second we have the non-ideological middle.  Their opposition is pragmatic.  They see stories on roadside bombing after roadside bombing.  Beheadings.  Police station bombings.  Assassinations.  Lack of vehicle armor.  Lack of body armor.  Still and all, they might sign up except that nobody is asking them to.  

Lastly we have the partisan Republican crowd.  Leaving aside accusations of being chickenhawks (which have some merit in my opinion), why aren't those who supported the war the most signing up in greater numbers?

One explanation might be that those who should be the most willing to enlist tend to be the most deluded about the real problems in Iraq.

If you are willing to write off all the bad stories to liberal bias in the media then you are probably not willing to entertain the idea that the military really needs more bodies.  Those who are most "supportive" of the war are also the most willing to swallow Cheney's lines about "last throes", etc.

Even worse, instead of encouraging the non-ideological middle to sign up by doing things like providing proper armor and  veteran's benefits, the partisan right has viciously attacked anyone who questions our progress as siding with the insurgents and rooting against our troops.  That type of rhetoric alienates people who have legitimate, non-partisan concerns about our progress in Iraq.

Personally, I have been willing to support a fully non-selective draft in order to finish the job in Iraq.  But I am unwilling to support one if it means maintaining a force without suffiicent numbers to accomplish the task.  I am not willing to support a policy of tossing people into a meat grinder unnecessarily.  

How much negativity can you load up in the article?

Libertarians: bottom of society.

Righists who oppose the draft: Jew-haters.

Leftists who oppose the draft: unpatriotic and inhuman.

Army: failed.

Iraq war: wrong.

Rounding up Americans, loading them up on trucks, and shipping them off to involuntary service: A-OK.

What on earth does this kind of nastiness have to do with the party of Lincoln and Reagan?

Rummy echoed my thoughts perfectly:


"A foreign army is not going to defeat the insurgency, the Iraqis will defeat the insurgency"


It's why I keep ragging on you about the Iraqi forces :D
-bro

On the first, it is enough to note that we cannot plausibly threaten another nation should we need to (Iran, Syria and North Korea come to mind);

we'll never attack nk. ever. once you have the bomb, you're off the list of people the US will pick on. plain and simple. and thats why iran is accelerating their nuclear program, and i dont blame them at all. they need a deterrent against the US's overwhelming conventional forces.

besides, whats wrong with diplomacy?

I support the war and President Bush, but I disagree that any reinstated draft would have to do away with deferments for college and grad school.  This isn't like WW2, where we needed millions of additional troops.  Here, just a few thousand would probably suffice, just to plug the holes in recruitment that have popped up.  There would be plenty of people in the draft pool who aren't going to school without forcing students to seriously disrupt their lives by enlisting.  

Why is less of a disruption to be carted off out of country, just because one is not in school?

Is there a military aequivalent of Brookes' law?

(For my take on the draft, see here.)

Senator Hagel is one of the few Washington Republicans to serve in front-line combat during a war. A officer in Vietnam, he was wounded twice. A little life experience like that could formulate a person's caution in beating a war drum. I think this "fool" is a good balance for a bellacose Party.

Was impressment viewed benignly in the northeast?

Nope.  Does it follow from this that the War of 1812 was popular as per the conditions laid out above?  Nope.  Moving on.

One mention and it's "tedious tenacity".

One?

You want my blog list?

Heh.  Oh boy.

Wow, you got all that from a passing mention in a news story?

Yep.  You might try applying the same critical skills to your own media consumption.

Gotta be honest here, by the bye -- I'm smelling a non-soldier, non-veteran in you.  I could be dead wrong, of course, but I find the airy dismissal of these particular points to be unlikely to be coming from someone who knows what he's talking about.

How could I have missed that.

Doesn't seem all that unlikely.

Only the bit on libertarians and "rounding up Americans" is even close to an accurate approximation of what was written.

As for what Lincoln might have to do with a draft, I leave that to you to puzzle out.

And yes, he's one of the few Senators -- I doubt you have an accurate reading on the life experiences of the universe of "Washington Republicans" -- to "serve in front-line combat during a war."  To which I say: so?  Does it follow from this that the willingness to, say, abandon Taiwan is moral or explicable?  No?  Thanks for playing.

When did Lincoln back the draft by calling its opponents inhuman Jew-haters?

A historical quibble: The Civil War was not universally popular, neither in the North nor in the South. There were significant anti-War minorities in both. In the North, there were people ("Copperheads") who believed that the South should be allowed to depart in peace, and even that slavery was OK. There were also those who complained that it was a "rich man's war an a poor man's fight", echoing the "war for oil" crowd of today. In New York City the imposition of the draft even provoked one of the worst riots in US history. And likewise in the South there were more than a few Unionists who wanted no part in the war. In Tennessee they were probably even a majority, in western Virginia they seceded back to the Union (hence West Virginia), while some states (e.g., Georgia) refused to allow their state militias to fight outside their borders.

In 1864, if not for the victories at Mobile and Atlanta, Lincoln might well have lost the election to the "peace" party, the Democrats.

Do we get to counter your Hagel's willingness to abandon Taiwan with a McCain's willingness to defend it? Or do we have to go looking for Democrats who still remember their Party's old affection for human liberty in the face of communist threats? I'm sure there must be one. Somewhere.

Re:  No C.O. status.  No physical deferments.  No student deferments.  No nothing.

Obviously there will have to be some deferments. We are not going to be able to draft paraplegics; the army needs healthy, physical fit men (and maybe women) after all. Also, religiously motivated pacifists, like the Amish, cannot be drafted and never have been (though they might be drafted for peace work). I would hate to see the day America starts actively persecuting religious minorities! However on student deferments: Yes, those were the worst features of the Vietnam draft, allowing a free "out" to the middle and upper classes. Also, the Don't Ask Don't Tell gay policy will need to scrapped unless you want to create a loophole the size of the Grand Canyon for anyone who wants an out.

....when did I call the opponents of the draft "inhuman Jew-haters"?

Near the end, when you list the reasons all your opponents are such awful, awful people for supporting a volunteer army.

Your contempt for all who oppose you leaves me feeling like Daily Kos, so I will stop reading all replies on this article.  I've had enough of this particular "petri dish of pessimism and protest."

Why do we give China- a corrupt, communist regime carte blache to create the worst imbalance in exports/imports in US history? I suggest you take a hard look at the economic war happening right now. Could it be that as long as a nation supplies cheap labor, we overlook human rights abuses, destruction of our own work force, and support for Tiawan?

  When Tiawan proposed a statement of independence, this administration nervously doused it. Where was the hard core support then?

You'll see what you want to, but I've re-read that article twice, and have to conclude you didn't read it. You read something else. Try reading trevino's article titled "The sense of duty." It's on this site. Good luck.

Now, if you actually want to critique this:

Quibble one: The Civil War was extraordinarily popular in the South for about three months, and in the North until the boys got back from Manassas. After that, it is an extraordinary stretch to call it popular.

Quibble two: World War II was only popular because we could point to a defined enemy who'd attacked us (or allied with our attacker), and then only after years of public intransigence to getting involved in that mess.

Problem one: A conscript army -- regardless of any pluses or minuses -- carries certain costs for which we are no longer equipped. This is not to say we cannot become so equipped; it is merely to say that there are enormous costs to be incurred in so doing. We must not only put the infrastructure in place to begin absorbing larger numbers of recruits, we must revisit how we train, in light of the fact that many of these new recruits will be somewhat unwilling to be there at best. There will be material, human, and monetary costs that I think are elided over a wee too easily here; at the very least, it is presumed that those costs are outweighed by the benefits of a renewed draft, or at least are less than the current situation. That, however, is an argument trevino does not make or address. To my mind, it's the biggest flaw here.

Problem Two: Implicit in this argument is that we must remain in Iraq indefinitely. Again, this is an argument the absence of which makes the primary argument weaker. Put differently: At what point, ceteris paribus, would we be leaving Iraq? Why is that different now? If it's not, can we keep our current force structure in place until we leave? If not, why not? Doesn't all of this really postulate that we have, if not imperial ambitions, imperial mechanisms that must be met?

In other words, the second problem is that too much goes unsaid; too much presumes that the future will extend out indefinitely as it is now. Suffice it to say, events don't usually work that way.

I could go on, but I do want to leave you with a parting thought: Lincoln would have had jailed opponents of the draft.

Good luck with reading the original article.

If you're proposing a cold war with China, I'm there with you, and more than a tad irritated with this presidency's approach to the same. As I suggest you're merely trying to score rhetorical points, I'll probably just let this pass.

If we are to fight the war we need to untie our military and let them do what they need to do.  Instead of breaking down the door of a suspected insurgent just blow the house up and do clean up later.  

We need to protect our soldiers and if they make a mistake so be it.  War is war and bringing our men and women up on charges for making a mistake is unparalleled stupidity.  

There is a severe shortage of manpower and we need many more to be able to become proactive rather then reactive.

Do we need the draft?  Yes.  Will the draft be fair and unbiased?  No.  

Our leaders put us in this mess and now we need to clean their mess up.  To expect a draft that does not protect their sons and daughters is very noble but not realistic.

Look for the push on the draft after the elections.  

Excellent catch there.

I would argue that there is. A good fraction, if not the outright majority of casualties in Iraq are from IEDs. The enemy is trying to disrupt our supply lines. More troops require more supplies, which requires us to put more convoys on the road, which provides the enemy with more targets.

Military power doesn't scale linearly, especially not in an insurgency like this. Especially when the American people are already jittery about casualties. The long-term goal is unchanged from what it always has been - get the Iraqi Army able to defend Iraq and get our troops out. At some point we're going to have to have the Iraqis able to defend themselves, and that time is coming closer and closer.

I would like to see the Republicans bring up a draft authorization bill and pass it with no Democratic support.

Since the conservatives 'girded for war' while the 'liberals wanted therapy', this is an excellent way to show Republican toughness and 'Support the Troops'.

Another way to 'Support the Troops' that does not involved expecting politiicans to support unpopular measures might be for the supporters of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq to visit their local Army and Marine career councilor office now to beat the rush. I am sure the troops in Iraq would appreciate some reinforcements and it would show those liberals who the patriots really are.

OYE

 

that we've turned another corner. But wait, when you make three turns to the right, where do you end up?

is a Republican?

Presumably, when he says "Jew haters" he means conservatives opposed to nation building. Which, prior to 2001, included George W. Bush. Was he a "Jew-hater?" However, more confounding is the relation hating Jews has to the draft... or does hating Jews make one hate the Army as well?

More to the point, his entire article is based on the notion that a) a draft is cheaper than just increasing military pay. This is totally, totally wrong, and though he never says it outright he makes the assumption. There actually ARE incentives to risk your life, whether it's in the military or police force or fire service.

Another problem with his "argument" is [b)] that he just assumes the way to victory is to merely bolster a currently-failing strategy with more targets for the terrorists (that he defines the campaign as "insurgent" is telling, given the number of foreign fighters in Iraq-- telling of a political agenda closer to Kos than to the GOP).

In reality, we need more elite units authorized to use more "hard" tactics, not some crappy conscript whose never fired a gun. Which is, by the way, instance c) of Trevino being clueless. Back in the 19th century, even into the 20th, the average person was more familiar with firearms than they are today- at least of the rifle variety. Increased urbanization, among other things, is the cause, but the result is an inferior caliber on incoming conscripts.

There actually are many problems beyond that with the quality of draftees, but that's not really the issue. After all, the government is sending in National Guard and Reserve Units, and they aren't exactly Delta Force. Problem d) is that the war really ISN'T going to last forever, whether we are winning or not. We have enough troops to train the Iraqis and mount various patrols and operations... if Iraq can't get up on its own in the next couple years, too bad, because we'll leave anyway.

Nothing was learned in Vietnam. We lost because we fought not to lose, rather than fighting to win. In Iraq, a less severe case of this is ongoing. At the same time, there is no question the American presence in Iraq causes resentment among a number of Iraqis and other Muslims... a long war is distinctly unfavorable to the US, and a draft would not only signify a long commitment, but would appear threatening to other nations on our bad side. That's point (e): there are international as well as domestic consequences of implementing a draft.

I'm not sure exactly what Trevino is postulating in terms of public support for a draft... in his haste to demonstrate some hate (for libertarians, liberals, and conservatives, or I guess everyone other than secular dictators), his prose became unwieldy. But if he means to say it will ever be supported by the public, he is laughably wrong, and if he means it has a chance politically, he's crazy.

Many, many things can be done to address the troop shortage, which Trevino overstates from the beginning on the basis of his (false) assumption we'll be in Iraq for a very long time. Really he has shown a remarkable degree of arrogance on this thread, from his initial post through his responses... it's disgusting for him to call himself a "Republican" if in fact he does so anymore. He has abandoned logic and dismissed critics with non-sequitors (in especially pitiful fashion, his response to the military's opposition to the draft).

in Trevino's next response to you.  He just plays the "you must be a non-veteran, non-soldier" card whenever he can no longer respond to your well reasoned and researched points.  Check out other blogs he has written in the past if you want other examples of this type of smear.  And he has people like Thomas and others willing to come to his rescue.  Save your breath next time.

Sorry for getting off the subject of this thread. China should be looked at as a competitor both militarily and economically. They don't play by the rules in either aspect. The U.S. still whispers for them to float thier currency, which is locked in step with ours. They are also a huge broker of arms and arms technology to nations with questionable intentions ie. Syria and Iran. But, I still get my $40 DVD player and fireworks for the upcoming 4th. Sad really........

has been going on for quite some time. Now, during the end game of the Cold War China was an important counterweight to the Soviet Union so Reagan's China policy is excusable on those grounds. But Bush the First's doormat-style obeissance to Beijing in the aftermath of Tienamen Square was not defensible, nor the obsequiousness of Clinton (who was virtually on the Chinese dole), nor the current Bush policy. In the long run it is China that is our true rival. The nutcases in the Middle East may commit the occasional atrocity, but they are not a real challenge to our nation's power and future the way China ultimately will be.

In that China is committing suicide in its gender imbalance and birth dearth. I don't know that I give them twenty more years of national cohesion.

Excellent comment.

....might actually be able to protect and patrol supply routes, as opposed to now, wherein said routes are basically unsecured and hence result in the aforementioned casualties.

You just aren't reading well on this one.

And those would be -- ?

Gee, I just spent good billable hours explaining why he was wrong. Who knew I was a plant?

Presumably, when he says "Jew haters" he means conservatives opposed to nation building.

How profoundly tedious.  Clarifying questions: What sentence does that phrase appear in?  What proper noun is in said sentence?  What does said proper noun refer to?  What was the historical role and ideological proclivity of said referred-to entity?  Who is engaged in the rehabilitation of said entity in the modern day, and what is their attitude toward the war in Iraq?

....entire article is based on the notion that a) a draft is cheaper than just increasing military pay.

Nope.  I'm sure the latter is cheaper.  But the effect won't at all be the same.  Some will be willing to die for money, yes; but not as much as you hope.  Furthermore, the avoidance of military service in the the present day is not premised upon, "Gosh, this doesn't pay enough."

....he just assumes the way to victory is to merely bolster a currently-failing strategy with more targets for the terrorists....

It's currently-failing, of course, because there aren't enough troops.  As for your contention that the American soldier is merely another "target for the terrorist," devoid of active positive value on the battlefield....well, I have more confidence in our own.

....that he defines the campaign as "insurgent" is telling, given the number of foreign fighters in Iraq-- telling of a political agenda closer to Kos than to the GOP).

Hoo boy.  Pure nuttery.

In reality, we need more elite units authorized to use more "hard" tactics, not some crappy conscript whose never fired a gun.

Suddenly it's all negativity where conscripts are concerned, historical experience be damned, eh?

Increased urbanization, among other things, is the cause, but the result is an inferior caliber on incoming conscripts.

Of course, you've no data to back this up -- unless you define "inferior caliber" as "never having handled a rifle before."  But the Army is pretty good at remedying that.

if Iraq can't get up on its own in the next couple years, too bad, because we'll leave anyway.

Ah yes.  Too bad!  All our dead -- and theirs -- in vain, 'cause we're leaving anyway.  Detestable, really.

there are international as well as domestic consequences of implementing a draft.

Yes, demonstrating national seriousness on that level would be something else, eh?

....his (false) assumption we'll be in Iraq for a very long time.

Ever looked at the pre-invasion estimates of troop levels there over time?  Now you tell me how long we'll be in Iraq -- especially as the President, thankfully, doesn't appear to share your willingness to throw them to the wolves after X years.

Well, here is an unorthodox solution to the Army recruitment problem.   I am not sure if Kerry or Mccain would like it?

"Solving The Army Recruitment Problem"

at http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog

I look forward to your upcoming discussion of why 'the war is not sustainable in the long run...".

I would also maintain that this proposition is not substantially different than Hagel's statement that we are losing.

Hagel wants to win the war as much as the next American, but he thinks if we continue on our present course we will fail.

Hagel has a series of proposals he thinks will improve the situation which he lays out in the article.

He plans to share his views with the current president and his team and says he feels an urgency he hopes they will share.

The word preemtive means taking action to prevent an imminent action performed against you.

The US declared war on Germany on Dec. 8 1941 because Hitler was about to declare war on the US anyway.  That could be called preemption.

Saddam was hardly going to invade the U.S. or any other country any time soon.  He was not about to use any of his phantom WMD either.  There may have been plenty of other reasons to overthrow a petty tyrant, but nothinng that falls under the category of preemption.

Iraq was a preventive war, not a preemtive one.  The administration will never say so because it makes the war almost impossible to justify when compared with other global threats.  "Grave and gathering" does not mean "about to launch".

You are definitely one of the bright lights of this place, trevino.  You seem to make your own points and not rely on the CW of any group.  

I think you are both absolutely correct and absolutely wrong with your advocacy of a draft.  How's that for a paradoxical starting point?

From a strategic and tactical point of view I think you are absolutely spot on.  At the end of the WWII we had around 7 million troops in Europe, mostly in Germany.  The Soviets had even more.   Military presence was virtually omnipresent.  This greatly discouraged would be insurgents as they were facing a force vastly more powerful than they.  This is not the case in Iraq today.  While our military is the best trained, most professional, and most lethal military on the planet that doesn't mean it is the most effective policing agent in the world.   Fighting light mobile fighters with strong support among the populace is a difficult fight, particularly when our military must be collateral damage-averse.  Our military is fighting with an entirely different rules system than the insurgents.   This isn't going to change.  

If we were to implement a large scale draft we could compensate for our definicienes by becoming omnipresent in the areas that require it.  Instead of having relatively lightly armed Humvees patrols  periodically roaming the area we could have heavily armed convoys of troops that could enjoy widespread supporting force.  We could relatively easily quell resistance in known hot spots such as the road to the Baghdad Airport.  

I don't believe that the additional troops would significantly alter the political lanscape of Iraq.  We're already there.  Putting more troops is likely to only have a marginal impact on popular opinion.  I also disagree with the belief that we couldn't train conscripts at the same level as our current troops enjoy.  Many of our combat arms troops serve 2 stints and are effective.  I don't see why it would be much different for a conscript.  Certainly some of our more technical jobs would need to be fielded by volunteers but I don't believe that it is really that hard to train someone how to fire a SAW.  FTR, I was in a pretty technical MOS for the Army(tactical digital communications) and I can tell you that the vast majority of people in my unit had only basic technical skills.

Having said all that, a draft is simply not realistic politically.  There is a reason why most Americans are relatively insulated from the realities of this war.  The Administration is purposefully trying to portray this war as NOT being impactful to most Americans.  IMO, they are willfully portraying this as a war fought by people who voluntarily chose to join the military and that average Americans should let them do their job and not take a personal stake in this war.  This is a smart political tactic.  

However by implementing a draft this would no longer be a viable political strategy.  A draft affects EVERYONE in some way.  People would begin to take a MUCH more serious look at the war to see if it's worth fighting.  Given that most Americans don't currently have an emotional investment in carrying out this war, the Administration would need to change our national mindset.  At this point this is a near political impossibility.  

The only way a draft could have worked is if the Administration had brought  this in post-9/11.  Instead of trying to portray this war as a war fought by volunteers they needed to portray this war as a war that ALL Americans must be involved in.  

In other words the ship has already sailed for a draft and barring a cataclysmic event I don't see this being seriously considered.

The US declared war on Germany because they declared war upon us.  Not exactly a pre-emptive move on our part.

Which, of course, is one more reason Americans in general hate nation building. It still boggles me how Bush could sound so adamant in 2000 about it and do such a volte face. It's not like he was a PNAC guy to begin with, but he has been completely coopted by them.

It was quite a turnaround, but a necessary one. In the fight against the Islamofascists, we have two options for victory: change the Middle East to stop becoming a petri dish of terrorism, or turn the Middle East into a large glass parking lot. The latter is hardly an appealing option, therefore we're forced into doing the former.

Our strategic interests in the long-term depend on our willingness to confront authoritarian regimes. Fortunately the Bush Administration seems more serious about actually following through on those goals than nearly any previous administration.

From a friend in Iraq now:

Right now the only supply runs that they're doing are ones of basic neccessity.  They don't have the troops to protect the convoys, and they are conscious of US casualties.  The only purpose for the base is a kind of minimum sustainability, and my sense is that many there don't know why they are in Iraq and what they are doing other than this.

My point is that it is not exactly a model of efficiency now.  Much of it has to do with political calculations, acceptable risk, etc.  But much of it also has to do with troop levels.  Security of US troops might decrease if we have an extra 100,000 GIs there that are not hunkered down inside bases.  But the overall security of Iraqis would surely increase, and we could make much quicker progress on Iraqi force training as well as rebuilding civil infrastructure.

and Germany the day after.  Maybe I'm wrong.  If so, it was a bad example.  Care to address the rest of my argument?

Both countries actually declared war on Dec. 11 (Roosevelt had asked congress on the 8th), but Germany and Italy did it first.

Anyhoo, Iraq was a preventive war!

I'm not fan of this war so I don't have much to argue with regarding your post.  

I don't know if I would call it preemptive or preventative.  That's quibbling on semantics.  Personally I oppose the war for political and strategic reasons.

"Are you honestly asserting that it is the American troops who are not doing their jobs well enough?  "

I don't know what he is saying, but I do know that human beings have an actual stress limit; push them past that limit and they WILL break down.

The bottom line is that our troops are getting worn out and will need to be replaced sooner or later.

over a billion people. It will take much longer than a generation before their population policies substantially reduce their numbers, and I'm betting they change those policies when they start losing population to a serious extent.

Ad hominems, however satisfying for trevino, are not considered legitimate arguments by intelligent people.

First of all, you don't explain why you had to throw in the "Jew haters" bit, unless the goal is to paint all non-neocons as "Jew haters." I just don't see a rhetorical or substantive contribution to the article, such as it is.

Second, you ignore the fact that my 'source' on the limited use of conscripts is the military itself; you offer a blanket attack on the military's leadership to justify your position but there is no real indication in your claims of why a) the military wants to lose in Iraq or b) why they want to win but feel obligated to specifically speak against a draft (which is equally political to supporting a draft).

Thirdly, you demand 'proof' for my claims but then somehow deny the economic validity of incentives-- at a certain price, almost ANYONE will risk their lives-- people just don't all have the same price. For many people, though, it's low enough the US government can afford it... when the alternative is a draft.

Among other things- like why you can't even properly diagnose the nature of the enemy in Iraq- the point is that your article is without any factual foundation (you cite no studies in your piece, which is the question here, not responses to it). We are supposed to take your word that more troops= more success and that we should run Iraq at any price. Guess what, there is a price we WON'T stay in Iraq for... again, there is a difference of opinion of what that price should be, but it's there for everyone.

And, yes, Bush will draw us down in Iraq as we turn over control to the Iraqis. At some point, they have to stand and fight on their own, and I think the administration sees that as much sooner than you do. There will be a US presence there for a while, of course, but that doesn't mean 500,000 troops or how ever many you want to send.

Very poor article and extremely poor responses to criticism. Not indicative of a lot of character.

To fall apart; it will just help the process.

Who the America's Firsters are, right?

They were most certainly an anti-semitic bunch.  And staunchly isolationist. Not sure how the Neocons apply in this context.

Seems some of you knee jerked to his use of Jew-hater without looking at what he was saying.

And while we can always incentivize enlistement to meet recruitment demands it is unrealistic to believe that we can afford a limitless increase in military pay and benefits to meet our ever growing military needs.  

I find your statement that since trevino didn't link to a STUDY that renders is point moot a bit strange.  He offered several historical contexts.  Why is a study necessary?

While you are wailing at Trevino for not backing his point your point seems almost completely based on a faith in this administration.  Whether you support them or not blind acceptance of their claims, especially given how consistently wrong they have been during the occupation, is naive.

I just don't see a rhetorical or substantive contribution to the article, such as it is.

I know you don't, but your inability to perceive isn't evidence that it's not there.  As a clue, though, I offer the already-posited questions, plus the word "paleocon."

....you ignore the fact that my 'source' on the limited use of conscripts is the military itself....

Oh?  Source, cite, quote, perchance?  I'll wait.

....why they want to win but feel obligated to specifically speak against a draft....

That's addressed in this very thread, actually.

....at a certain price, almost ANYONE will risk their lives....

Seriously, you work out the economics necessary to entice a force of, say, 300,000 men to volunteer for wartime duty in Iraq and let me know.

....you can't even properly diagnose the nature of the enemy in Iraq....

Ah yes.  This because I use the term "insurgents," which to your mind means I am 1) denying the existence of foreign fighters and 2) to the left of Kos.  A thin reed, and, well, dumb.

....you cite no studies in your piece....

Except for the two that I do.  Re-read.

We are supposed to take your word that more troops= more success....

Not at all.  You are free to reason things out for yourself.  Just don't gripe when you get challenged on it.

And, yes, Bush will draw us down in Iraq as we turn over control to the Iraqis.

This is, you realize, something different from your proposition that we cut 'em loose no matter what.

....I think the administration sees that as much sooner than you do.

Of course they do.  That's been part of the problem, hasn't it?

Very poor article and extremely poor responses to criticism. Not indicative of a lot of character.

Wait wait, I thought "ad hominems....are not considered legitimate arguments by intelligent people."  Well, dang.

Including those wealthy enough to go to school.

who was drafted.   A kid who is working towrds his electrician's license, for example (as is my stepson) or a young person trying to save enough money to buy a home or start a family would find his plans just as disrupted.   College students can and do take years sometimes to complete their degrees.   If such a thing as draft were to be instituted, the college deferments would be completely unacceptable to me and I am sure any draftee who is not fortunate enough to attend college.

 the leader of a kitten-weak state while talking nice to other despots != "confronting authoritarian regimes".

It was you guys who got cold feet. Don't complain to us because we're the only ones who remember a commitment to international freedom.

the leader of a kitten-weak state

Watch and learn. You are not thinking enough moves ahead.

If you can explain what "Jew hater" contributes to the article, I'd like to hear it.

Trevino established a set of false premises and now is continually defending them by not-so-deftly answering the questions he would like to answer, rather than the ones that are asked or raised.

It is at least an interesting effort, seeing as there will never be another draft in the US.

He was referring to a specific group of people who based their foreign policy positions on their anti-semitism.  Do you deny they existed?

You seem to focus on the jew hater part but ignore the rest of the sentence "Conservatives" who try to rehabilitate America First jew haters.  Notice that rehabilitate is used meaning that "Conservatives" are trying to correct the error of the ways in that regard but agree with them on principle in others.

Historically speaking this country will, sooner or later, be faced with the option of either re-instating the draft or they will need to consider hiring mercenaries to fight their wars for them.  If Rome is any example the latter option is not terribly palatable.

Trevino is not say that a draft WILL happen.  He is saying that it SHOULD happen and he makes a compelling argument.  Instead of looking at this through partisan glasses you should examine it through a dispassionate view of what's best for the country.

 Except, of course, it was sold at best weakly as a 'commitment to international freedom'.

 Where's Osama again? And why is he free?

 and I might take you seriously.

 The American people have now had their fill of offensive military action.

like the ones on display when you relied on Adams who wasn't even talking about the American Revolution?  Thanks for that laugh, Trev.  I won't push the needle too far since I was equally ignorant about the quote.  Hopefully I can track down the entire letter and I'll post it here.

One?

Yes, one.  It comes before two.  Have I posted that link anywhere else?  I've tried to but Google News simply turns up nothing on the main reference points.  Maybe you can point out the rest of my "tedious tenacity" wherever it is you saw it.

Heh.  Oh boy.

Yeah, there's that smug dismissiveness.  I'd thought you lost it.  So, atleast as far as Iraq goes the MSM is the purveyor of record.  Gotcha.  Well, lookie, how can I disagree.  Here you are advocating a draft so it must be true.  Such a levelheaded concept.  

Gotta be honest here, by the bye -- I'm smelling a non-soldier, non-veteran in you.  I could be dead wrong, of course, but I find the airy dismissal of these particular points to be unlikely to be coming from someone who knows what he's talking about.

You are a prescient one.  And forgive me for saying but I'm glad you aren't in the service any more.  It appears the Adults(sorry for the trademark infringement, Trev) disagree with you.

Doesn't seem all that unlikely.

Coming from Mr. Oh-Noes-The-Terrorists-Are-Planning-Ahead I'll take that as a compliment.  

I leave it to you to track back through the thread and figure out who brought John Adams into the conversation -- and to whom this constitutes a profoundly important point.  Suffice it to say that if the stat is wrong, it neither affects the argument of the original post, nor is it an error of critical reading.  Don't get me wrong: I understand why you cling to this (disingenuous, pretending to believe the "one" refers to your link).  If I had nothing else, I'd do the same.

So, atleast as far as Iraq goes the MSM is the purveyor of record.

Versus blogs?  Well, yeah.  You're drinking some new media Kool-Aid, here.  Try broadening your consumption a bit for a fuller picture.

....I'm glad you aren't in the service any more.

Prick us, do we not bleed, etc., etc.   Hey, I'm glad too.

It's okay that you don't like me, "polyphemus," but it's also boring.  Got anything substantive, here, or is this all rearguard action on your part?

You are saying that our strategy in Iraq should be modeled after CAP, but it currently is not?

The Revolution, for example, is estimated to have commanded the active support of roughly 1/3 of the colonists, with another 1/3 opposed, and 1/3 of wavering loyalty -- it was hardly a universally popular cause.

You did in #75.

Versus blogs?  Well, yeah.  You're drinking some new media Kool-Aid, here.  Try broadening your consumption a bit for a fuller picture.

Thanks for the concern but I've had paperboy.com bookmarked for years now.  I'm confident my reading habits are varied enough as it is.

It's okay that you don't like me, "polyphemus," but it's also boring.  Got anything substantive, here, or is this all rearguard action on your part?

I don't like anyone online.  Nor do I dislike anyone online.  Substantive?  Yes.  Your opinion of the necessity for a draft is just that--an opinion.  I've never posted in response to you before because it doesn't really matter.  You're tilting at windmills and who am I(lowly libertarian) to get in your way.  It was the same way with Digby's crusade against Rove.  Ditto Cole's against our theocracy.  Your premises though are atleast inexact.  You narrowly selected 4 wars and focused on two to bolster your view that conscript armies might be a necessity.  And you haven't yet done anything to negate either the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812 based on the criteria you selected(popularity and national survival).  Granted inclusion would dull your predetermined argument but you'd atleast get points for not having a failing you ascribe to those who disagree with you--namely, "ignorance of history".  You can pigeonhole and mock people who don't toe your line as well as any I've seen but it does nothing to aid your cause.

We've had a steady show of improved competence from the Iraqi forces and I post one recent example and your reaction is "Wow, the mujs are showing coordination.  This is bad."  It's like after 9/11 there was a slew of "experts" stating that it was way too sophisticated to have been pulled off by a bunch of guys living in Afghani caves so there must have been state-sponsored intelligence involved.  You're in good company atleast.  Probably just as wrong but we can't have everything now can we?  

Hey, wars in which a sizeable portion of the populace is either on the enemy side or passively impeding its prosecution don't make the cut, here.  Sorry if you don't like that: while you have a case with the Revolution -- though I disagree -- you have none with 1812.  Not sure paperboy.com is doing you well on that count.

Still, as noted before, even conceding your point on the Revolution, the original argument still stands.  The question for you then becomes: so what?

Libertarianism is fundamentally incoherent and yes, immoral as a philosophy.  But that's for another time.  If this irritates you -- good.

Yes, I deny conservatives are trying to "rehabilitate" "Jew haters." In reality, the base of the GOP (evangelical Christians) is extremely pro-Israel, in some cases almost fanatically (a number are less open to compromise than Netanyahu & co. on Palestinian statehood).

Also, if you are following military developments, the one constant is a reduction in the need for human capital. Machines are the future, like it or not. Vehicles will be more widely remote-control, weapons are longer ranged, etc. A draft is NOT inevitable, especially if we stop fighting wars at a high rate.

And I'm not sure what the "partisan" remark is about. I thought we were in the same party?

Hey, wars in which a sizeable portion of the populace is either on the enemy side or passively impeding its prosecution don't make the cut, here.

I agree.  So why again should I look to the MSM?  We can disagree on the extent of the blame that is assigned but I don't see how anyone can, with a straight face, claim they are doing a decent job of keeping that populace informed.  Especially when that populace probably relies solely on the MSM for its news.

Sorry if you don't like that: while you have a case with the Revolution -- though I disagree -- you have none with 1812.

So you say.  And your proof of that is the Federalists.  Since they had such a long and distinguished life post-1812 I'll concede the point. /sarcasm

Not sure paperboy.com is doing you well on that count.

You'd be surprised I'm sure.

Still, as noted before, even conceding your point on the Revolution, the original argument still stands.  The question for you then becomes: so what?

Exactly.  So what?  So why'd you mention history in the first place?  Oh that's right.  You did it to belittle anyone disagreeing with you.  Funny that you then would show such a measly grasp of it yourself.  Glass houses.

Libertarianism is fundamentally incoherent and yes, immoral as a philosophy.  But that's for another time.  If this irritates you -- good.

If I agreed with all the positions of the L's I wouldn't be here in the first place.  You really should stop going after the easy targets, Trevino, as they are usually the least significant.  But, just for the record, it doesn't irritate me.  The non-Republican views I hold I refrain from commenting on--religion, abortion, drugs, etc.  It's a little something called deference.  I don't soil any rugs and you don't tie me to a tree.  It's worked well so far.  

You aren't familiar with the paleocons, I take it.  Actually, count yourself fortunate.

You win.  I can't beat a fellow who can't hold a conversational thread.  It's a weird victory, but victory it is.

I could hardly stop laughing as I twisted your attack on the War of 1812 into one against the MSM.  To each his own I guess.

I'm not going to belabor the jew hater stuff.  I understood his point.  

I see little reason to believe that our rate of warfare will significantly decrease.  Maybe it will but history doesn't support that claim.

Right now we are considerably more powerful than the rest of the world's military.  While we cannot defeat the rest of the world we can project far more force than any other nation.  But this isn't likely to remain that way forever.  Sooner or later our professional military will either wane in force or we will wane as a world force.  When that happens we  will likely be forced to either obtain a military or draft one.  This could be a long time from now but it will likely happen sooner or later.

The partisan comment is directed at the fact that numerous people are attacking Trevino as if he wrote something that was anti-Conservative which it wasn't.  By repeating White House talking points as a counter to the thread you portray a bias to partisan attack over reasoned debate.    

You are saying that our strategy in Iraq should be modeled after CAP, but it currently is not?

I believe he is saying that our current strategy in Iraq resembles that of CAP.

Oh, I'm much more familiar than you with what you term "Jew haters."

What a joke. How can you act so high and mighty with such a deficient education, at least on this issue? WHO ARE these evil Nazis stalking Washington-- Hagel? Buchanan, a journalist?

This is a propaganda piece creating a fictional problem that happens to paint actual conservatives in a bad light. How surprising from a RINO.

I hate being having to outright connect the dots for you -- it comes across as condescending in precisely the manner you deserve -- so I'll just say that if you put my mention of the paleocons together with flyerhawk's mention of America First, you can figure how the two relate, and you'll be on the right path.

And yeah, RINO.  Ha.  Yep.

Isn't what you think it is. Thousands of enlisted servicepeople are trained every year in a variety of languages-Korean, Chinese, Arabic, Farsi, etc.  Unfortunately they are not valued, are employed in dying fields using obsolete technology, the maintenance of their skills is not supported in a military culture that regards language study as a kind of shamming, and cannot be kept at the awful pay that they receive when most of them came into the enlisted corps with average levels of education comparable to the officer corps. The services are hemorrhaging their trained people partially due to the anachronism of the service culture itself.

I don't think the problems being faced in Iraq are due merely to manpower shortages, and are certainly not going to be solved by an influx of conscripts. Not sure how long ago you were in the services, but the viability of a draft Army is rapidly diminishing  as training times increase apace with technology. What this means is no ad-hoc draft would be sufficient; to meet current needs you'd need a full national service program. Lag time on something of that nature is pretty impressive.

On a philosophical level I'm opposed to a draft; it's wrong to force an individual to take up arms. Period. But I think this draft bugaboo is really just a way of throwing up our arms and giving up on succeeding with what we have, which is more than sufficient, a ready-made excuse for when things turn for the worse..."If only we'd had a draft."

Yet you continue to be one of the most interesting posters here, and it's a shame people's reaction to orthodoxy challenged has to be so vituperative.

That stray pieces of DNA could be correctly characterized as "free." If that really was him in 2004, then I do have to say, Who knows and who cares? He's not a supervillain. He won't use his Osamarays to destroy us all. He's a near invalid with a kidney condition constantly on the run. If he dies that way, I'll sleep at night.

With that said:

(1) Then you weren't paying attention.

(2) Which still isn't our fault.

(3) And still doesn't go to the fact that y'all got off that ship at the first chance.

Like I said, I know all about America First, the reasons for their opposition to our entry in WW2, etc.

That does not, in any way, at all, make your use of "Jew haters" necessary.

All it makes you is delusional and prone to using hate speech.

Then explain the Jew hating stuff to me. I don't get it, and I know 20th century history quite well. I know who America First is. I know a lot about Rockwell's '64 campaign. So the hell what? Why did Trevino claim "paleocons" are "Jew haters?" What % of the GOP is National Socialist?

Warfare has already been decreasing in frequency, though it can vary widely from century to century. There has been major improvement in how nations approach the international arena, and the increasing power of weaponry (or availability of powerful weapons) means more states can build effective deterents.

The US is, for instance, functionally immune to attack by a nation-state. Many other countries are immune or close. Terrorism poses a different challenge but cannot possibly be an alternative to the nation-state, and thus is a lesser threat than an aggressor state.

Trevino wasn't being anti-conservative, he was being irrational and, frankly, has behaved on this thread rather like a rabid dog with too much fever to do anything other than vomit cheap shots.

I'm not going to have a semantic war with you.  You seem somewhat obsessed with that particular comment.  Trev has repeatedly tried to clairfy it.  You continue to ignore those clarifications for whatever reason.  As I said, I understood his point and I certainly did not infer that he was casting aspersions to Conservatives in general.  You apparently have chosent to take up the sword and fight for the honor of Conservatism.  Good for you but I believe it is wholly misplaced in this case.

What evidence do you have that warfare is decreasing in frequency?  I sure don't see that considering that warfare has been pretty much a constant throughout the 20th Century and the intensity far greater.   There have been numerous wars this century in which casualties reached the millions.  There have been COUNTLESS wars in which casualties reached the hundreds of thousands.

While the US is generally impervious to direct attack by other nation-states currently that is both short-sighted and irrelevant.

It is short-sighted because technology changes.  Nuclear weapons are a trumping deterrent in the world today.  But that is not to say they always will be.  Someone may discover a way to render nuclear weapons useless.  Matter of fact it is likely that SOMEDAY this will happen.

It is irrelevant because the US doesn't use its military to protect its borders.  It uses it to project force to achieve various national interest objectives and to maintain their global hegemony.  However if volunteer levels start to drop below the level necessary to perform these tasks the US MUST choose either to implement a draft or hire straight mercenaries.  Historically this is fairly common.

? Why did Trevino claim "paleocons" are "Jew haters?"

For God's sake, man: learn to read.

Then could you just paste Trevino's explanation? I haven't seen one. Apparently I can't read, though I did score 800 on the verbal portion of the SAT and missed 1 reading comp question on the LSAT.

So please help poor, stupid me and just say again why "Jew haters" was needed in the article. Again, I'm sorry for being so dumb as to not see things that don't exist.

On weapons: really what matters in war is the ability to direct energy against the enemy. Whether its TNT or atom bombs or orbital laser platforms, the concept remains the same. But 1000 years from now, a nuclear explosion will still be significant.

Please tell me you are not actually citing test scores as some sort of verification you are smart.  Please say that didn't just happen.

I gotcha beat on the LSAT though :-).

someone discovers a way to prevent fission from occurring or creates a defensive mechanism that would protect their land from nuclear attack.

Congratulations on your wonderful SAT and LSAT scores.  Do you have a large member as well?  

Whether it was necessary or not is a matter of taste.  Given the context of that paragraph it was pretty obvious he was firing for effect.  

I apologize for the obnoxious tone of my 2nd sentence.  I shouldn't let my irritations reflect in my writings.  

I'm just noting that I can indeed read, most likely better than Trevino.

I also was a very good debater. I am trying to be clear- and seemingly failing- but perhaps it's worth another shot. This is just for you Flyerhawk, I'm not interested in Trevino's self-defense since to date that has consisted purely of irrelevant vitriol.

Certainly rhetorical devices are a matter of taste. What has completely escaped Trevino and I guess everyone else is that his usage of "Jew haters" was not itself my concern. I fully understand what he was referring to.

What I am asking is:

1. WHO ARE THEY? If indeed there is some cabal of Neo-Nazis trying to sabotage our war effort, who are they? I mean names.
   
2. WHAT ARE THEY DOING? Assuming that, indeed, anti-war conservatives are neo-Nazis (which is not the case, but that's a slightly separate issue), what specifically is being done as part of that agenda?
   
3. WHAT IS TREVINO HIMSELF ATTEMPTING TO ACCOMPLISH? He knows a draft won't happen, so his piece was academic from the first sentence. The question I have is why he went out of his way to defame anti-war Republicans.

Presumably, it's part of a wider feud he has with some Republicans. That's his problem, not my problem, but dishonesty and distortion on the blog is a problem for everyone that reads it. Childish Nazi-calling dressed up with a 5th grade rhetorical device has no place in reasoned discourse.

It could be argued that Trev was painting with too broad a brush and didn't make the appropriate caveats.  

But he was trying to hammer a point.  While I think that he is fully aware that his call for a draft is a quixotic battle, he believes it is a worthy battle.  

 The use of the Jew-hater comment was, I suspect, meant to evoke imagery of the agenda driven isolationists of the 40s who ignored what was right to further their own agenda.  I think the fact that he skewers the Libertarians as well, a notable isolationist cadre, is a tell tale sign that he using extreme examples.

But also understand his comment was directed at those who favor a volunteer force over a conscripted one.  If Trev is guilty of something it is that he was too narrow in his definitions of those who oppose a conscripted force.

 that you're still comfortable with the man who plotted 3,000 American and international deaths free as a bird.

That you have no sense of perspective. It simply strengthens my increasing contempt for Democrats in general. Bravo.