Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 04/21/2004 View Tue 04/20/2004 View Mon 04/19/2004 View Sun 04/18/2004 View Sat 04/17/2004 View Fri 04/16/2004 View Thu 04/15/2004
1
2004-04-21 Home Front: WoT
Senator says US may need draft
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2004-04-21 1:02:05 AM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Do not often agree with hagel, but would like to see a WWII style mobilization of human and material resources to attack ALL the nations harboring our ENEMIES. Hitting Iraq while leaving Iran and Syria unmolested is getting our PEOPLE killed in Iraq.
Posted by Anonymous4391 2004-04-21 1:25:17 AM||   2004-04-21 1:25:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 There's much talk regards the things we should do, from Iran to Syria (a redundancy, methinks, Iran is the key to Syrian activity) to Saudi. Expanding the boots inventory certainly makes sense, both in this light and in what we're seeing in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Given recent quota fulfillment reports, it seems apparent that we can find who we need without a draft. Personally, I have come to admire the hell out of the current volunteer military - and see no overriding logic to change its nature one iota, as long as the non-idiotarian segment of our youth keeps signing up. They have restored my faith, in fact, that we aren't going to hell in a handbasket. These kids are awesome!

What worries me, actually, is the materiel aspect. To do even half of what is being bandied about, seriously increased production of those items we have seen run short, from HQ ceramic body armor to GPS-guided munitions to armed UAV's, just to mention the most obvious, had better already be a fact, not a talking point for some future planning meeting. And a bunch of these seem appropriate, as well.

If our people are willing to risk all, then we are duty-bound to give them sufficient stocks of the best tools to do the jobs we ask them to perform. They rock - and we should certainly do no less.
Posted by .com 2004-04-21 3:03:03 AM||   2004-04-21 3:03:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 (Hi, Dotcom! Where've you been? I've missed you!)
Oh, and Megadittos to everything you said above!
Our military is the best and they deserve everything they need to do the job right!
On to Victory!
Posted by Jen  2004-04-21 3:34:22 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-04-21 3:34:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Hey, Jen! Been around, but just don't have much to say. Simply put, I'm waiting to see whether we are serious about Iraq - and the Bush Doctrine - or not. Fucking domestic politics, that UN jackoff Brahimi, bullshit cease-fires, negotiating with Al Sadr, Shitsani the Shi'a SuperPrick -- the whole thing leaves me semi-speechless. So I'm just waiting to see if we have the stomach (per article I posted yesterday from Canada.com) for what's coming and the cojones to back our people. I hate politics - all forms. I've posted multiple articles today - but they're in quarantine until an RB god approves. One is on partitioning - you may find it pretty persuasive. In sum, it's time to get off the dime and for the US to follow through or wimp out. This waffling shit gets good people killed - and ours deserve better. BTW, keep whacking the moles - you're doing a great job of it! I'm too pissed off to be in civil company, at the moment. Sorry!

Now, back to my hide...
Posted by .com 2004-04-21 4:10:11 AM||   2004-04-21 4:10:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 It is obvious to anyone whose brain is not pickled in cheap bourbon and suffering from faux-bravado there are not enough human resources in uniform to fight the global war on terrorism in the Mideast, Asia, Africa and beyond. Syria is a problem in and of itself. Iran is a separate problem. Attacking Iraq and leaving the Syrian and Iranian regimes standing, is little different from a WWII entailing taking down Italy and leaving Germany and Japan to the diplomats. This nation needs to be engaging in ALL OUT WAR on all fronts simultaneously without regard to international law, global public opinion or any other consideration not related to neutralizing the REAL and PRESENT dangers to the USA.
Posted by Anonymous4391 2004-04-21 5:28:26 AM||   2004-04-21 5:28:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I hear you guys, both dotcom and Anon4391.
The problem isn't with the military--it's the morale on the homefront, largely as created and perpetrated by the Lying Liberal Left media.
If we could either get them to shut up or give up on their "cause" of Orwellian "New World Order" peace-by-appeasement plan and finally let we "chickenhawks" and "neocons" be the new men and women of the hour, we might get somewhere.
I feel the worm turning slowly, slowly but building to something for the election.
It could go for Lurch and the whining peaceniks but I doubt it.
America--the silent majority that Nixon talked about--is finally "getting it" that we're at war and that it's a war they want us to win.
If we can get the megaphone from the Left and tell the world we're really behind this thing and do so by re-electing President Bush in November, which is also a big "Yes" vote for the Bush Doctrine, then we will have won about 90% of the GWOIT (Global War on Islamist Terror).
I live in hope...which is why my blog motto is "We can do it!"
Posted by Jen  2004-04-21 5:47:29 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-04-21 5:47:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Damn, I don't where to start. I agree with all you guys (and Jen). It looks like we really do need to just hammer hell out of any, and every, friggin jerk off country that harbors terrorists of any breed. I mean bomb the hell out of them and don't look back, don't give a good God damn about what anyone thinks. When it's all over we'll have more friends than we can provide drinks for. You guys don't know me but I'm a Yank here in China working for major US oil and have been for close to 8 years. I can get RB on internet sometimes and thankful for that. I thirst for comments and news about my country. Just keep it up. I have a bad feeling about that 9/11 commission and what the final report will be. I'm like Bubba in Forest Gump, Why is this happening? Why is that commission happening? No good can come from it. Anyway,Good luck, and keep the words flowing. Chiner, reporting from, Yep, China.
Posted by Chiner 2004-04-21 6:01:44 AM||   2004-04-21 6:01:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Chiner, hold the fort over there--Can you give us any scoop about Kim Jung-Il's recent visit for a woodshedding to talk about his problems?
I wouldn't worry too much about the 9/11 Commission; it's become more than obvious that it's a partisan witch hunt with the purpose of blaming Bush and exonerating Clintoon, but the opposite happened and the polls bear that out!
Posted by Jen  2004-04-21 6:04:58 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-04-21 6:04:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 They're the ones who volunteer. I'd like to see a young Kennedy volunteer.

Or maybe young Ms. Clinton
Posted by cheaderhead 2004-04-21 6:25:59 AM||   2004-04-21 6:25:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Yes but a war on terrorism is primarily won in the hearts and minds. That means not only showing that you are a nice guy but also destroying the image of the opposition.


Far too many people still seebin Laden as a kind of Robin Hood. Let's remind them he is for slavery, that he lives in stolen money (from Shia's oil) or how little he cares about the lives of Blacks (remember the embassy bombings: 200 dead Blacks, 4000 wounded for the sake of killing 12 americans).

Encourage Muslims to ask questions like: "Whare in Koran it is said that the money of pilgrimage must end in Arab pockets?"

Have non-Arab muslims see wahabism and other variants of radical islam as instruments of Arab domination.

Encourage the Arabic speakers of North Africa and Middle East to no longer consider themelves as Arabs (just as Mexicans don't consider themselves as Spanish or Americans as English)

But above all we must forget about political correctness, we must be able to tell the unfiltered tyruth instead of cowing unless the target is an american WASP We must have our media opensly speaking about the negative aspects of Islam in general and radical islam in particular instead of fearing being accused of hate speech.
We _need_ Hollywood churning movies defending our values, depicting the heroic actions of service men or valiant resistants trying to escape Iranian or Syrian secret police instead of giving Oscars to any unwashed loser who hates America. Remember the movies "Casablanca" and "Objective Burma". That is what we need and we need it now.

Posted by JFM  2004-04-21 6:27:24 AM||   2004-04-21 6:27:24 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Amen, JFM!
And what illustrates best what you're talking about than what happened today in Basra--3 (or maybe it was 5) Islamist bombs that killed Muslims, including at least 10 little school children.
Muslims killing Muslims. Shame.
Posted by Jen  2004-04-21 6:34:10 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-04-21 6:34:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Looks like no one else wants it... Grrrrr, A4381, how can you get so much right and so much wrong in one tiny post? You must've edited it for an hour - or you're a... well, I won't go there.

Iran and Syria are not separate problems. Iran funds and plays the Spiritual Leader game for Hizbullah and funds Hamas in Syria. Go back about a year or so to when Khomeini paid a little visit there and then read your ass off and you'll find this is accurate. Tip the Mad Mullahs over and Baby Asshat is just a whimpering puppet with no one to pull his strings - or pay the tab for the toys they've been lugging over the border.

Allied efforts in WW-II began with Operation Torch in North Africa. In those days we had to have a base of operations - and N. A. allowed us a starting point to get to Europe - and divide Hitler's European resources to make the D-Day Invasion possible. You gotta start somewhere. In the M.E. and with our capabilities today, we started smack dab in the middle of Arabic Islam. There are at least a hundred good strategic advantages to doing Iraq first, if we follow through and finish the job. If we don't, then where didn't matter at all.

Afghanistan made perfect sense - I hope you don't disagree with that... otherwise it's apparent you don't know jackshit about the WoT.

You're right we need more people, but we will do it incrementally because the US PC public is not ready for all-out global war. Not yet. I'm at least as frustrated as you are, believe me. If we are hit with something nasty inside the US, you'll get your wish in one go - but I'd rather pass on that motivator, thank you very much. If we can manage to avoid it, yet keep the US public on-board in support of our troops and Dubya's gutsy scrapping of the failed policies of the past for a real WoT, i.e. The Bush Doctrine, we will knock them out, one by one, as resources and necessity allow.

First we have to go medievel on Iraq. Then Iran - prolly by year-end and only a Mad Mullah structural beheading assist to the Iranian people, I hope. Then Saudi Arabia - I suggest we simply take their oil away - and let the Wahhabis flop around like landed fish while the Royals skeedaddle with the loot. Then, if needed, Pakistan - their Izzoids are almost totally dependent upon Saudi funding. The rest fall (or are effectively neutered) because they have no funding - and yes, this assumes that Izzoid funding coming from the West will dry up with the defeats. The "military" leaders of the Izzoids are 90% mercs. Much of the fodder is full of romantic BS that will wear thin when the cash runs out and they have to fight with rocks and sticks.

BTW, regards that faux-bravado - you're right that there's a lot more talk than action - everywhere. It's one reason why I'm scarce these days - there's nothing much more to say regards Iraq until we see if CENTCOM still has the green light and has the will to finish the job -- or has Dubya decided to allow the pols (UN, Iraqi, whomever) to fuck it up (translation: get good people killed to no effect and, thus, for no good reason), for whatever reason. I wish he'd go ahead and gut State - call it pre-emption, if you like - I prefer to think of it as long overdue maintenance.

If all else fails and the tide of idiocy can't be stopped through conventional means - or if the US public loses its footing and falls for the Socialist BS - some poor soul sitting in the Big Chair is going to be faced with the worst choice in history: dhimmitude or genocide. That would suck, but it'd be a no-brainer for Dubya. Skeery doesn't have a brain of his own, so that would be a terrifying prospect.

I feel like Jeremiah Johnson when he said it had been a long time since he'd had so much of the English language spoke at him. Toodles.
Posted by .com 2004-04-21 6:35:07 AM||   2004-04-21 6:35:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 I was midway through my stint in the Army as an instructor in the signals school (then at Ft. Monmouth, NJ) when the draft ended. Based on what I saw then, I wouldn't want to return to a draft; frankly, I think it would be a disaster. Much of our forces' effectiveness, it seems to me, derives from their voluntary nature. Having freely chosen to serve, that service becomes a profession--and those who serve do so more professionally and more effectively.

As to not having one's brains pickled in cheap bourbon, please note that the president of the United States cannot simply invade other countries whenever he feels like it: Congress must approve. And in an election year, with a Democratic Party that has made a cynical calculation that it can make political gains by opposing everything Bush does, including the war, such Congressional approval would be extremely unlikely; and even seeking that approval would tip off our enemies in Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia (yes, them too).

OIF had numerous objectives, few of which actually relied on our being totally successful in establishing a democratic regime there (though that would obviously be nice, both for us and for the Iraqis). One key objective was to secure a supply of oil that was not subject to cutoff, a la 1973, by pissed-off Arab despots--and we're going to need it, because once the WoT begins in earnest after the election, they're going to be REALLY pissed off at us.

Another key objective was to establish a land base for our military forces, strategically located near our enemies; without that, subjugation of Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia is impossible. We simply can't do that from the sea alone, and even Iraq couldn't be taken without use of land facilities in Kuwait, Qatar and elsewhere in the region. But now we are in Iraq, in force. Syria is to the left, Iran to the right, and SA down below. Once we get Iraq settled to the point where it's mostly governing itself in a reasonable semblance of order, the WoT can begin in earnest.

I'm impatient, too; because it is indeed obvious that Syria and Iran (and SA, too) are the "real" enemies. But that impatience has to be tempered with some sober, strategic thinking.
Posted by Dave D.  2004-04-21 6:44:18 AM||   2004-04-21 6:44:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Sorry about the double post
Posted by JFM  2004-04-21 7:12:11 AM||   2004-04-21 7:12:11 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 Dave D, awesome answer--and it got us focused again!
Bless you.
Posted by Jen  2004-04-21 7:13:44 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2004-04-21 7:13:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Dave D's got it. The draft would be an unmitigatged disaster. Raise the pay and form 4 more divisions. At one time the all-volunteer army had what.... 16 divisions?
Posted by Shipman 2004-04-21 7:41:37 AM||   2004-04-21 7:41:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 I'm not really in favor of a draft right now. It worked in World War II but in the kind of war we are fighting now I don't believe it's a good idea. I don't want to be in a very tight situation with someone beside me who is just going through the motions until his time is up. I want someone who is as motivated as I am and who I can literally trust with my life. Most of the people I served with back in the late '60s and early '70s were just the type I don't want to be around when the shit hits the fan. The only things on their minds were the next meal, when they were going to get out, and when they could smoke the next joint. The reason our military is so good is beacuse it is volunteer. These guys are good people.
Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-04-21 7:42:27 AM||   2004-04-21 7:42:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Aside: (Like Jen, I was wondering where you got to, .com...but I saw you over at the commandpost so I figgered you were alive and connecting...)

Blather: I'm going to chime in on this one although I've nothing insightful to say. Most of the time I don't like to run up Mr. Pruitt's bandwidth. But today...something is different.

Self-examination: It could be that I only pause in VRWC echochambers. It could be I don't want to pull my head out of the sand. But I can barely stand to watch the news. If it looks bad for us, or if I hear that slant (I think they call it 'bias' today) rolling out of the newsreader's mouth, I tend to change the channel. This began years and years ago during the insistent, leftward bleating on Vietnam. (And I remember reading an article that claimed there WAS no Vietnam bloodbath when we pulled out...geez)

I used to think I was a coward (although I did keep turning up in the mil recruiter's office...for their part, they kept persuading me to hit the road, sometimes tossing me into the street...). Nowadays, I think I'm just fed up.

Where I stand: I'm of the Jen-Chiner-.com school of thought. "Go there, kill them." Don't let politics run the war, let the military run the war. I'm anxiously waiting to see if this Bush Doctrine will track true. I'm not doubtful, I'm hopeful which is a worse condition.

Results of standing: I'm weary. Weary of chattering nincompoops on the news, in the papers...on the internet. Weary of the US always being the bad guy. Don't we EVER get redeemed? Don't we EVER do good? How is it that so many people around the world want to immigrate to this country when we're so awful?

On the Draft: Of course, the reason for the draft-yammering from the left is obvious. Most of the opposition to the Vietnam war was really opposition to the draft (don't take our boys to fight YOUR war!). When the draft ended, so did most of the vocal opposition to our engagements abroad. Additionally, the Vietnam conflict was winding down at the same time the draft ended. (That's the way I remember it, anyway.) So now the Left, fer goodness sakes, wants a draft? Why? Answer: Because the institution of the draft will gin up opposition to the war. Simple. Effective.

The draft will have the added value of undermining our military's potency. Sometimes I think those folks just have glass heads. The fact that enlistments and re-enlistments continue to be high only rubs salt in their self-inflicted wounds. They must have a draft or they'll never be able to de-throne Bushitler. See? I know you do.

Conclusion: In the meantime, I hope Mr. Bush can get Iraq under enough control that we don't lose out from our fifth column, America-hating media convincing Americans that 'we've lost, it's time to get out.'

I'd like to see some good war movies, too. I think they'd be overwhelmingly lucrative. Kinda like the big whack-upside-the-head Hollywood just received from Mr. Gibson.

The last hope is this (and I tell myself every day): "These kids are awsome!." --.com Yup, I'm around them from time to time and I've been pleasantly surprised. They aren't buying the media gibbering. Their attitude seems to be "we need to win". For the most part they seem to believe in America, the US military and Our-way-of-life. I think they are proving it in Iraq.

Civil, well-reasoned discourse...yup...
Posted by Quana  2004-04-21 7:52:35 AM||   2004-04-21 7:52:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 NO DRAFT!

THe Senator is gravely mistaken about the draft - his thinking is still back in the Korea/Vietnam era military where he gets outdated concepts like "levee en mass" and a large questionably-motivated conscript army.

The modern US military is mobile, very quick, and very much technologically oriented. It is an military of force multipliers.

It is not a large grunt military designed to attrition the enemy - Sen Hagel would have us return to the days where the job of the military was bleed the enemy to death while bleeding itself, like all conscript armies do.

Somone needs to take the Sneaotr adn drag him into the latter quarter of the 20th century and learn about modern warfare, especially the kind of wars we now fight.

On a more philosophical front, if we cannot supply enough Americans willing to go do what is neccessary, then we do not deserve to continue as a nation. Like the Greek's hoplites, if we lose the core of people who are willing to live by "Come home with your shield or on it", then we have failed as a society.

As a practical matter, NOBODY wants draftees.

The military today is not the Vietnam military. It requires intelligent, motivated and well trained people. You are not going to get that from a bunch of people who never asked to be there. Examine the All-Volunteer military - as a whole it is much better educated than the general populace, much more patriotic, and much more dedicated than the nation as an average.

And finally, the services are meeting their needs now with recruiting, and are not calling for as large a force structure as would require a draft.

Bottom line, a draft is not only unneeded, and unwanted - it would actually be very detrimental to the military, filling it with people it would normally have rejected and who didnt want to be there or ask to be there, and this woudl rapidly destroy the elan and esprit de corps that makes our military such an effective PROFESSIONAL fighting force.

NO DRAFT. Peroid. Someone take Sen Hagel to school.
Posted by OldSpook 2004-04-21 8:07:14 AM||   2004-04-21 8:07:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 I think if Congress developed a Letters of Marque system against terrorist targets, for missions such as recon, sabotage, intelligence gathering, and so on, and isued them not only to private American companies and individuals, but also to foreign companies as well, this war could be ended faster and in a shorter time and with the victory we must have.
Posted by badanov  2004-04-21 8:31:40 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org]  2004-04-21 8:31:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 If we need more ppl,Bush just needs to get on the airways and say he needs vonlunteers He probably get them by the boatload.
Posted by djohn66 2004-04-21 8:33:08 AM||   2004-04-21 8:33:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 "But I can barely stand to watch the news. If it looks bad for us, or if I hear that slant (I think they call it 'bias' today) rolling out of the newsreader's mouth, I tend to change the channel. This began years and years ago during the insistent, leftward bleating on Vietnam."

I don't even bother with television "news" anymore, not even Fox. Even with them, the medium forces them to both succumb to sensationalism and alarmism, and oversimplify the story as well. Occasionally I'll watch Brit Hume's show, but that's about all.

The best thing I've found is to use online newspapers to get a feel for what's happening, then make the rounds of the blogs to de-spin the newspaper stories--i.e., what facts did the newspaper conveniently omit; what parts were factual and what parts were just the author's opinion; what other stories are related to the item, perhaps shedding additional light; what other stories has that author written, and what other misrepresentations has he made in the past; and so forth.

Frankly, I find online news a lot less aggravating than TV: I'm not forced to sit there like a lump, just taking in whatever bilge the talking head wants me to hear.
Posted by Dave D.  2004-04-21 8:38:35 AM||   2004-04-21 8:38:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 I know that military service is a well established way to get a Green card. Just expand the program. Not only will it get you good motivated troops it will get you the right kind of citizens.
Posted by Phil B  2004-04-21 8:46:52 AM||   2004-04-21 8:46:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 I'm sorry but we don't need more troops in Iraq, we need to change the ROE (Rules of Engagement). Stop playing nice. Tell Sadr, 'Turn yourself in, or whatever mosque you are in loses its protected status and you die.' Then bomb the hell our whatever building he's in. Our troops are fighting this fight with one arm tied behind their back, let our boys (and girls!) bring the pain.
Posted by AllahHateMe 2004-04-21 9:11:21 AM||   2004-04-21 9:11:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 hi .com good to see you again. dont pull anymore chaineys on us.
Posted by muck4doo 2004-04-21 9:45:30 AM|| [http://www.lettuceladies.com/meet.html]  2004-04-21 9:45:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 Thanks, Quana, for so thoroughly summing up exactly the way I feel ... I force myself through one or two BBC radio news hours a day, along with as much NPR as I can stomach (and this is from a former dollar-a-day guy) and then turn to RB and other web outlets to reassure myself that sane people still exist.
Posted by Anonymous4401 2004-04-21 10:01:26 AM||   2004-04-21 10:01:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 #27 = docob
Posted by docob 2004-04-21 10:01:56 AM||   2004-04-21 10:01:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#28 We also need to consider the source. Hagel gets on the talking head shows because he consistently goes against the standard Republican line. That's his sole claim to fame: he's the media's "voice of reason among the Republican warmongers" guy. This call for a draft is just more grandstanding on his part. I believe the draft is immoral because it is coercive; more to the point, it is inefficient because it is expensive and volunteers are far, far better motivated than draftees. NO TO THE DRAFT.
Posted by Jonathan  2004-04-21 10:19:27 AM|| [www.workaround.blogspot.com]  2004-04-21 10:19:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#29 I'm sitting here in Colorado Springs, with Fort Carson (which until about a week ago had 10,000 troops in Iraq), Peterson AFB (Space Command), Shriver AFB, and Cheyenne Mountain AFB, and the Air Force Academy, plus about 50,000 retirees from all branches. The military in general and the WoT in particular is always a hot topic, and a lot of the people here have more than a passing knowledge of the subject. Most of my friends are retirees, ranging in rank from an Air Force Major General through a medically retired Private First Class from Vietnam. Quite a bit of what I post here is consensus from what we discuss when we get together.

One thing we all agree on is that the "Peace Dividend" cuts in the military were too much, too soon. The Cold War may be over, and we may not need those divisions to fight a land war in Europe, but thanks to the way the world has aligned against us, the PEOPLE are needed elsewhere. Those million-plus military slots that were eliminated between 1990 and 2000 would certainly come in handy right now. Having them filled with well-trained, experienced warriors would be even better! That's spilled milk, there's not much we can do about it but chalk it up to experience, and move on. However, we need to start adding those troops back in. I think it's imperative that we begin increasing our military strength by 5000 Army, 500 Marines, 300 Navy, and 500 Air Force a quarter (about all that can be added to the training schedule without some major reshuffling) until we double its current size. That's about the force levels my friends and I feel is necessary to meet current worldwide commitments (including Korea, the Middle East, Europe, and other hot spots), establish a reserve of forces for unexpected needs, allow for better troop rotation, provide a better training environment, and take some of the burden off currently deployed personnel. Those troops should be split 60% active, 20% active reserve, 20% national guard. The biggest problem is funding, which will have to be approved by Congress. There's going to be a huge cost, both to support the increase in personnel, the increased cost in training and support, and the cost to properly equip these people to fight. The idiocy of base closures will have to be addressed, or there won't be anywhere to put these people.

Someone needs to also knock some heads at the very top, too. I'd love to get Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, and Powell all in the same room with myself and a few good friends, and let them have it with both barrels. As much as I respect some of the things they have done in the last four years, they all have blind spots that get them and their boss in trouble. Even the wisest man can be a fool at times, and all of these people have been fools at least once. This is no time to allow foolishness to go unchallenged.
Posted by Old Patriot  2004-04-21 10:28:09 AM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]  2004-04-21 10:28:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#30 I think the military should actively persue the "embedded journalist" idea again. It seemed to work well during the invasion. Now the news corps is running around looking for their own stories and anyone who will talk to them - which turns out to be mostly Iraqis. I think this would change allot of the journalistic views.

I'm growing impatient with our interactions with Syria and Iran. dotcom had it right - go after Iran and Syria will fall inturn. I think a big reason we aren't doing anything now though is because we are restocking our supplies. We used up allot of the 'cool-guy' stuff already and smart munitions are in short supply. I remeber reading articles of how theres is only 1 plant to make ammo, smart bombs, t-hawks etc. This is a problem inherited by this administration from previous admins with cold war downsizing.

I don't think a draft is necessary right now. Besides, it would take at least a year to get it up and running and the quality of soldier it would produce would not be the caliber we have in theater now.


Posted by Yosemite Sam  2004-04-21 10:28:41 AM||   2004-04-21 10:28:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#31 Old Patriot
I can see the tip of Pikes Peak and Devil's Head from my office - I'm an hr north of you!
Posted by Yosemite Sam  2004-04-21 10:33:28 AM||   2004-04-21 10:33:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#32 1. "dont let politics run the war"

Occupations are political by nature. That was true in Germany and Japan, it was true when the Brits ran their empire, its true everywhere. You want to have your troops fight on military grounds only, unconstrained by politics, then you need to go back to the Powell doctrine and stop occupying countries (I DONT agree with the Powell doctrine, and believe it was necessary to occupy Iraq, but I think that means we DO need to be political in running the occupation - frustrating as that is. Now that doesnt mean you cant be tougher in a given situation - but even then you need to be political. Even Rome had to be and was political in their occupation.

2. Do we need more ground pounders - yes.

3. Do we need a draft - no. If A. We expand the number of troops, so that rotations are shorter and more predictable, and improve pay, benefits, etc we can get enough troops without the problems of the draft.

4. Can we afford to do 3, and also to equip our troops as needed? Yes, but see 5.

5. Did the US cut taxes during WW2 - NO, taxes were raised, rationing was imposed, liberty bonds were sold, the entire economy was mobilized for war.

6. Can you get the people to take the war seriously when the economy is run as if it were peacetime? - I doubt it.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-21 10:39:17 AM||   2004-04-21 10:39:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#33 Why not just pay our warriors more? It's not like we won't need them for a long time.
Posted by geoffg  2004-04-21 10:43:32 AM||   2004-04-21 10:43:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#34 Quana - I agree that Hollywood could stepup to do its part. Think movies that develop future focus scenarios; i.e., this is what Islam will look like, if you maintain the Jihad. Show those responsible for maintenance of the jihad, being killed remotely via Predators, and by dirtect SF operations. Name the characters that will be on the list, and subject to our rising wrath.

Surely, there must be Directors and Producers in Hollywood who could this the story accurately, and embed our goals in the storyline. Should be a boxoffice blowout. Maybe Mel Gibson will do it.
Posted by geoffg  2004-04-21 11:08:12 AM||   2004-04-21 11:08:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#35 1. Don't let politics run the war

I'll disagree: wars ARE political. There's no way around that. Non-military politics failed to deal with Saddam so we went to war. Wars are ALWAYS political, in that the politics in the end decides when one fights and when one stops fighting. So what are the political goals in Iraq right now? I'll venture 1) stable, democratic government 2) federal state in which the major players aren't at each others' throats 3) no more than low-level insurrection in any location that is important to us 4) Iraqi police / milita handles 95% of all security 5) Iraq re-builds an economy sufficient to keep most everyone hopeful for the future 6) implementation of personal liberty protections for the population.

THAT'S political. And that tells the military what to do and how to get the job done.

On expanding the military: OS and OP note the need and OP notes the limitation, how quickly we can train people properly. We're looking at a new brigade or two each year, tops. So let's get to work on two new divisions over the next five years. Dedicate one (93rd Vol. Inf.) as a light, peacekeeping/peace-enforcing/ass-kicking-if-you-violate-the-peace division. Expand AF transport capability, sea-lift and support units.

And we need to encourage the Shi'a on the west bank of the Persian Gulf to establish the Republic of Eastern Arabia, a country about 40 km wide. That 2nd army division I want would be real handy to help implement the mutual defense treaty I'd have with the RoEA.
Posted by Steve White  2004-04-21 11:48:47 AM||   2004-04-21 11:48:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#36 Quana is right, the whole draft idea's a way to sabotage the home front of the war effort. Doesn't deserve any consideration at all.
Posted by someone 2004-04-21 11:57:05 AM||   2004-04-21 11:57:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#37 No draft. Not now, not ever again.
First and foremost, there will never ever be any widespread public support for such a move. The legal challenges alone (and yes, I know that a draft is 100% legal, and it will not matter)will paralyse any attempt for so long that by the time the legal decision comes down, it'll be too late.
OP points out that the system cannot train any more than it already is. USAF as a for instance cannot possibly train more than about a thousand people a month...and that system is so overloaded with extraneous crap that if you suddenly started pumping in even a few more bodies, it would collpase under its own weight.
The Army - and this is no reflection upon the brave men and women who run the outfit - could not possibly DO anything with thousands of new draftees, most of whom would be actively fighting any effort to put them INTO combat. It would take at best two YEARS to put together an effective division, and that assumes they had the equipment to do it with...and since a 'for the duration' law is damned unlikely, they will leave en masse two years after that.
A draft is really nothing more than a way to end any public support for the war without flat out announcing it. It will be infinitely far more trouble than it will be worth.

Mike
Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-04-21 12:11:40 PM||   2004-04-21 12:11:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 5. Did the US cut taxes during WW2 - NO, taxes were raised, rationing was imposed, liberty bonds were sold, the entire economy was mobilized for war.

Yes, and how long ago was that? Wasn't there a reasonably clear consensus of who the enemy was, across the U.S. political spectrum?

6. Can you get the people to take the war seriously when the economy is run as if it were peacetime? - I doubt it.

I doubt that you could get "the people" to take the war seriously if the economy was placed on a war footing. That would require more than a kick in their wallet. Even if the economy were "war-timed", the military wouldn't have been any more improved. Too many political forks in the pie.

Posted by Pappy 2004-04-21 12:18:38 PM||   2004-04-21 12:18:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Phil Carter at Intel Dump offers this.
Posted by .com 2004-04-21 12:39:51 PM||   2004-04-21 12:39:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 The Draft and 'McNamara's 100,000' did more damage to the US than the NVA ever could have. I'm all for keeping the Services voluntary, because I'm part of them. 'Freeloaders', 'Non-Hackers' and 'Slack-Asses' would suffer numerous 'accidents' and 'injuries' in the dark of night... If there is going to be a Draft. Close ALL the loopholes and Deferrments and EVERYBODY goes. No Exceptions. For the Duration Plus Six Months! Just like WWII. Men on the Front Lines. Women in the rear, or Stateside. Let's see how well the Dems will let THAT fly... Or, finally... Here's an idea... Induct Illegals into service for four years. With Citizenship attached at the end of that time.
Posted by Jack Deth  2004-04-21 12:41:41 PM||   2004-04-21 12:41:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Liberalhawk: Did the US cut taxes during WW2 - NO, taxes were raised, rationing was imposed, liberty bonds were sold, the entire economy was mobilized for war.

This comparison is both facile and misleading. There is a reason for draconian WWII measures - the US started WWII with military expenditures at 1% of a depression-level GDP, compared to the 7% (of a much larger economy) over decades of Cold War, followed by a decrease to 4% today. That 1% number for the Department of War (what Defense was called before the era of political correctness) went up to 50% after Pearl Harbor. The prewar 1% number was why American spending went up to 50% - to catch up with allies and enemies alike. The US's thriftiness up until Pearl Harbor meant that:

- the US started the war with arguably the worst equipment of all the major powers in the war, and this in the smallest amounts.

- the other powers fielded armies in the millions - the US army numbered 100,000 troops in total when Pearl Harbor took place.

Another important difference with WWII is this, at that time, we fought large scale naval, air and land battles with hundreds of thousands of uniformed enemy belligerents in multiple theaters thousands of miles away from the American mainland. These were conflicts that consumed huge amounts of fuel, equipment and men.

Among other things (this is only a partial list), we

- fought the Japanese in the Central and South Pacific

- kept up a steady aerial bombardment of Japanese cities

- resupplied Chiang Kai Shek's men by flying lumbering transport planes over the Himalayas

- sent ships in convoys across the Atlantic to resupply the British and the Soviets, at the cost of thousands of ships sunk

- sent men to take North Africa back from the Axis powers

- bombed German cities with thousand bomber raids, suffering 5% losses with each raid (that's 50 planes per mission)

- spent huge amounts of money on a bomb whose practical effects were unknown at the time of the research - some scientists thought it would destroy the earth by sucking all the oxygen out of the atmosphere

What comparable effort would require the expenditure of 50% of our annual GDP today? Are we going to invade every Muslim country in the world? Even if such a campaign were in order, would these militarily weak countries require anywhere near this kind of expenditure? Or is this a jobs program for security guards? The fact of the matter is this - security guards will not win the War on Terror - the terrorists can lie low until our economy sinks under the weight of the additional expenditures. (Why do you think Truman demobilized the military as soon as the war was over? To get the economy going again). The only way to ensure decisive victory is to forcibly change every Muslim government out there and perhaps forcibly convert them to some other faith. Unless a nuke is detonated on US soil, we're not going to invade every Muslim country out there. GWB's program may need a little calibration in one direction or another, but the essentials are just about right.

Note that rationing was mentioned in the earlier passage. What wasn't mentioned by Liberalhawk about WWII measures was that social programs were drastically cut back - and this was when they were at the spartan levels of the Depression era, before the Great Society programs of the 1960's provided welfare payments, free medical care and free food to the able-bodied. If the country is going to make sacrifices, social programs should be cut back drastically. Saying that we should raise taxes today is simply ludicrous - in the 1930's, tax rates were far lower than they are today - back then, there was significant room to raise them, whereas today, the government is already taking roughly 40 cents out of every dollar of income. What we need are more tax cuts, not tax hikes.
Posted by Zhang Fei  2004-04-21 12:59:41 PM||   2004-04-21 12:59:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 The major reason taxes were raised during WWII (aka The Big One) was to soak up excess money. There were few consumer items for all the money being dumped on the economy to buy. Taxes weren't raised to pay for the war.
Posted by Shipman 2004-04-21 1:41:07 PM||   2004-04-21 1:41:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Like WWII gas rationing..... there was plenty of gas but there were damn few tires until synthetic rubber plants came on line.
Posted by Shipman 2004-04-21 1:42:40 PM||   2004-04-21 1:42:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Liberalhawk -- there are enough people who object to treating unlawful combatants as anything less than criminal defendants to make it a political issue, and you think there's political will to mobilize to the extent of WWII?

Raising taxes and instituting a draft won't convince people there's a war on; those things can only happen AFTER they're convinced. Why don't you work on convincing your party there's a war -- and that it's NOT against Republicans?
Posted by Robert Crawford  2004-04-21 2:17:06 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com]  2004-04-21 2:17:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 Like most politicians, Hagel's comments are mostly misdirection intended to get him on TV rather than fixing a problem. If we need more troops, all Congress has to do is authorize AND FUND a higher endstrength. Recruiters are having no difficulty in filling their quotas.

A more useful discussion for Congress would be the ratio of reservists to regulars in the total force. I was talking to a Congressional staffer a few weeks ago who reacted to the thought of increasing the regular forces and reducing the reserves with horror. "We couldn't possibly afford it." Well, the "total force" concept currently screws reservists and guardsmen by using them like the regular forces but providing second class benefits. The reserves and the guard are making significant financial sacrifices to help Congress pinch pennies.

People like Hagel should just sit in a corner until the urge to make unhelpful and uninformed comments goes away.
Posted by RWV 2004-04-21 2:22:06 PM||   2004-04-21 2:22:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 A lot of good points. I think a few of you are unnecessarily impatient though. The draft is stupid, the military should have increased enlistment goals and expand again. Volunteers are far better than unwilling draftees.

Yes, Syria and Iran are enemies and the Administration should be using political and diplomatic heat on them now, but they can wait a bit.

If we invade Afghanistan and Pakistan reforms her ways to avoid being on our bad side we get two for one. If we invade Iraq and Libya changes her ways we get another two-fer.

Right now we are draining the swamp. The hotheaded fools are coming to Fallujia to die, making it easier for other nations in the region to modify their ways without worrying about these hotheads turning on them. If we declare war on everyone we announce our intentions and inflame everyone so that we have to fight for all of our gains. In that scenerio we are unlikely to make the same rapid progress, slow as it may seem right now.

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Posted by ruprecht 2004-04-21 2:40:23 PM||   2004-04-21 2:40:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 S'okay - ruprecht, heard about the failed Arab League meeting? The Tunisian hosts wanted to talk Westernization and the old cronies balked ...
Posted by Edward Yee  2004-04-21 3:21:34 PM|| [http://edwardyee.fanworks.net]  2004-04-21 3:21:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 The old cronies balked because they might get killed by those hotheaded fools at home if they came out as too western. But those hotheaded fools are likely to be slaughtered in Iraq over the next few weeks and months.

I bet the Arab League meeting goes a bit smoother next year. Perhaps they don't get very far but the conversations will happen and some progress will be made.
Posted by ruprecht 2004-04-21 3:43:32 PM||   2004-04-21 3:43:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 geoffg, I would settle for a sci-fi story showing life in San Francisco after Osama has won his Jihad. Knocking down the walls of Castro street to take out gays. Forcing the women to wear Burqas and beating them, killing a few in Pac Bell park. Perhaps a stoning because a slut allowed herself to be raped by her cousins. The banning of music and kite flying.

Hollywood spent the 80s and 90s creating post-apocolyptic or Corporations are evil type pictures. Why not make a film showing how everything they cherish is in danger and is worth fighting to defend.

We all know the answer, and that's what is so pathetic.
Posted by ruprecht 2004-04-21 3:52:17 PM||   2004-04-21 3:52:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 Geez...Don't you folks have jobs? Clausewitz(sp?) already. Who knew?

LH, Steve...I reckon I wasn't clear when I wrote "Don't let politics run the war". I meant that goals should not change on account of domestic sqabbling amongst our political brethren or opponents as they howl, grandstand or whine.

Make the plan, stay the course, be flexible, be agile, be mobile (hell, be hostile...whatever it takes) and be determined. Don't change the objective on account of domestic political buffeting. Don't hamstring the military.

Don't let domestic political sniping interfere with the military winning the war.

Cease fire in Fallujah to see if the CPA can talk the "town fathers" into helping them run down the terrorists? Fine by me. As long as we are on the offensive, as long as we are in control, as long as we don't give up ground, gain or lives in order to pretend to "play nice". Sure. Git after it. Politick all day long.

I believe there's a plan, so if you think I'm carping about "we're in, we're out, we're in, we're shaking all about...", be clear: I understand this ain't the hokey pokey. I'm just a watcher on the sidelines in the horseshoe so I'm going to miss some plays. I just want to know that we're all headed for the same goalposts.

(Apologizing in advance for such decrepit and cliched analogies)

P.S. (kidding about the jobs thing)
P.P.S. Dave D: right! Anon4409: right! AllahHateMe: right! ruprecht: right!
Posted by Quana  2004-04-21 4:30:45 PM||   2004-04-21 4:30:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 "Geez...Don't you folks have jobs?"

Yep. And the job includes an internet connection on my PC- and it's extremely important, naturally, that the internet connection be continually exercised to ensure we haven't gone offline...

Regarding the discussion topic, my attitude continues to be (with occasional lapses in bad moments) to just keep the faith. Bush has emphasized, again and again, that he means what he says and says what he means; and I'm willing to assume, for the time being, that he does. And if I see something that worries me, I'm willing to assume--for a while, at least--that there's either a good reason for what I'm seeing, or perhaps that I don't have complete information.

I counsel patience, and at least a little bit of trust in those who are running the show. In any case, they're doing a damn sight better than John Kerry would do--of that, I am certain.
Posted by Dave D.  2004-04-21 5:31:43 PM||   2004-04-21 5:31:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 Quana most all of us have jobs..... now work is another matter entirely.
Posted by Shipman 2004-04-21 5:41:42 PM||   2004-04-21 5:41:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Brigadier General Mark Kimmit is a guest on the Laura Ingraham show this evening. She happened to ask him what he thought about reviving the draft. As a serving officer, he had to be careful about his answer, but he did say basically that the draft was inconsistent with the kind of military that we have tried to build over the last 30 years, and that has been so successful in recent conflicts.
Ingraham also asked what he thought of this stereotype of military service as primarily a middle-class and lower-class phenomenon.
He said that he didn't know, since he was much more interested in urban warfare than in class warfare just now.
Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-04-21 8:49:24 PM||   2004-04-21 8:49:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 I had a job but nowhere as cushy as you guys who cna post all day here. There was no open internet access there. Nor cellphones. Nor cameras. Nor recording devices. Nor electronic devices. And plenty of armed guards.

Posted by OldSpook 2004-04-21 11:19:47 PM||   2004-04-21 11:19:47 PM|| Front Page Top

10:19 Yosemite Sam
06:19 Howard UK
06:12 .com
04:46 Neo
04:34 Super Hose
04:21 Super Hose
04:17 Howard UK
04:16 Super Hose
04:14 Super Hose
04:10 Howard UK
03:10 Super Hose
02:58 Super Hose
02:53 Super Hose
02:52 Super Hose
02:51 Zenster
02:47 Super Hose
02:44 Super Hose
23:57 Halfass Pete
23:51 Carl in N.H.
23:46 Mike Sylwester
23:41 ColoradoConservative
23:38 Mike Sylwester
23:35 Gromky
23:32 Gromky









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com