Wes Clark lays out Iraq plan

[Drake Tungsten]

Damn, that's so obvious...

I thought it meant "Liberal Democrat" for the longest time.



I guess I was pretty close to the real meaning after all.

[Zevico]

Wes Clark seems to be well intentioned, however one definite flaw in his plan (that I know of), is any cooperation by other Arab states. Given that these states are totalitarian, there intrusion into an attempt at creating a democratic society would in no way be of any assistance.
As to asking other Western countries for assistance, I think it would be the right thing to do, but it's not going to happen, at least with the present European governments in power: France and Russia want their oil contracts with Saddam honored by the new government that would be in power in the future, while the USA wants its companies to drill oil there instead. Personally, I would prefer Pax Americana to be strengthened then any of the European powers gaining strength from an agreement, as the European powers are relatively ( I said relatively here, people) friendly towards the ME dictatorships, as opposed to the USA. The exceptions of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the mini-countries like UAE do exist, but the USA is pushing away from the former-most mentioned country, at least, which is the worst of the lot.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Zevico
Wes Clark seems to be well intentioned, however one definite flaw in his plan (that I know of), is any cooperation by other Arab states. Given that these states are totalitarian, there intrusion into an attempt at creating a democratic society would in no way be of any assistance.
As to asking other Western countries for assistance, I think it would be the right thing to do, but it's not going to happen, at least with the present European governments in power: France and Russia want their oil contracts with Saddam honored by the new government that would be in power in the future, while the USA wants its companies to drill oil there instead. Personally, I would prefer Pax Americana to be strengthened then any of the European powers gaining strength from an agreement, as the European powers are relatively ( I said relatively here, people) friendly towards the ME dictatorships, as opposed to the USA. The exceptions of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the mini-countries like UAE do exist, but the USA is pushing away from the former-most mentioned country, at least, which is the worst of the lot.

It is much more likely we get help if it is anyone but Bush in office.

And relatively, the Eu countries are on par with their friendliness with ME countries. even though to get to brass tack comparisons, one would have to take each individual country's relations into account.

Kuwait is still not a democracy, and it is occupied mostly by American forces, and no other arab nation's forces.

[Ned]

Originally posted by NeOmega
1) Iraqi Army
Their loyalty will hardly be tenacious for the US. Chances of units betraying is small, but not impossible. But chances of them fighting effectively against fellow countrymen? iffy. They would fight as hard for their current employer as their previous employer.

To be fair to Clark, I think his plan is to give the new Iraqi government real power so that the Iraqi troops will be fighting, not for the US, but for their country. I think such troops will be motivated the most to win against Saddam. I would have no confidence that French or German troops will be motivated more to fight this war harder than the Iraqi's themselves would be motivated to fight if the Iraqi's knew that losing would mean Saddam would be back in power.

[Ned]

MtG, why don't we have a poll to see how many Americans would be in favor of having a Chirac-appointed bureaucrat in charge of spending America's $20 billion reconstruction aid?

[Ramo]

We didn't exactly poll the Iraqis to see how they'd like footing the bill for half of that corporate welfare splurge.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
We didn't exactly poll the Iraqis to see how they'd like footing the bill for half of that corporate welfare splurge.

Ramo, what are you talking about. AFAIK, the US is financing most of the reconstruction out of its own pocket. We have not asked the Iraqi's to pay anything back to date.

[Ramo]

$10 billion of the $20 billion is in the form of a loan to the future Iraqi gov't.

[Ned]

Saturday, November 8, 2003

Talk of a draft grows despite denials by White House

By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

WASHINGTON -- The United States' uneven record in Iraq has kindled a small but persistent push to reinstitute the military draft, a politically charged idea that hasn't been seriously considered since the end of the Vietnam War.

Yet despite denials from the White House that a draft is under consideration, and despite the obvious political fallout of such a move during an election campaign, talk of a draft has heated up in recent days.

Asked this week if the president is considering reinstituting the draft, press secretary Scott McClellan gave a quick and emphatic answer. "No," he said, moving to the next question.

But military observers and some members of Congress say that the notion of a possible military draft is gaining traction, in part because of questions from Democrats in Congress about the conduct of the Iraqi reconstruction, from retired military officers who are worried that the force is too small to accomplish such a big and difficult job -- and because of the administration itself.

The Defense Department fueled the debate this week when it placed a notice on its Web site asking for "men and women in the community who might be willing to serve as members of a local draft board."

The notice, which appeared on an official Web page for the Selective Service System titled "Defend America," explained: "If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards throughout America would decide which young men, who submit a claim, receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service, based on Federal guidelines. Positions are available in many communities across the Nation."

The Pentagon wouldn't comment on the notice, and by yesterday it had been pulled from the Web site without explanation.

Federal officials, falling in line behind President Bush and his official position, say there are no specific plans to bring back the draft but it's only prudent to have the plans and some of the people in place if it becomes necessary.

Despite those explanations, the public notice by the Pentagon marked the first formal request to re-establish draft boards since the draft was abolished in 1973.


Whether or not a draft is reinstated, debate about troop strength and the commitment to Iraq will continue. The United States has more than 130,000 soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, a deployment that has virtually drained the Army of its troops. One division remains in the United States.

Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and senior military officials have consistently said that the military is not stretched too thin and that there are enough soldiers to meet all responsibilities both domestically and overseas.

The Pentagon sought to underscore that point Thursday by announcing that it will send 85,000 new Army and Marine combat troops to Iraq to replace soldiers ending one-year tours. The Pentagon also alerted 43,000 National Guard and Reserve support troops that they may be sent to Iraq as well.

Taken together, those decisions constitute the largest rotation of U.S. troops since World War II.

In an added twist, the Army announced that soldiers in every unit designated for deployment to Iraq next year -- whether active duty or reserve -- will be prohibited from leaving the service during a period beginning 90 days before their departure to 90 days after they return.

Ironically, if the White House and Pentagon decide to reinstitute the draft they will earn support from some senior Democrats. Sen. Ernest Hollings of South Carolina and Rep. Charles Rangel of New York have both said that the country should bring back the draft.

Without a draft, they say, the current force will be overly dependent on National Guard and reserves. That fact, coupled with the yearlong tours required of Reserve forces, has sustained demands that a draft be considered.

Rangel and Hollings each sponsored legislation that would re-institute the draft. The identical bills call for mandatory national service in either the military or some other national service of all men and women between the ages of 18 and 26.

Rangel argues that poor and less-educated Americans suffer a disproportionate number of deaths and injuries in an all-volunteer force.

"In Iraq, minorities represented a disproportionate 32 percent of the deaths among combat-related specialties and 40 percent of those among the non-combat ranks," Rangel said.

"I do deplore the fact that Americans and Americans-to-be of their socioeconomic positions make up the overwhelming majority of our nation's armed forces, and that, by and large, those of wealth and position are absent from the ranks of ground troops," he said.

"The point is that, under a draft, every economic group, every social class, men and women, would be given the opportunity to contribute to the defense of their country," he said.

While some -- even many -- members of Congress privately accept Rangel's logic, no one expects Congress to publicly embrace the draft.

Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., who is one of the authorities on the military in Congress, opposes bringing back the draft, said his chief of staff, George Behan.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/147483_draft08.html

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
MtG, why don't we have a poll to see how many Americans would be in favor of having a Chirac-appointed bureaucrat in charge of spending America's $20 billion reconstruction aid?

We don't poll Americans on other spending matters, why should we on this one?

The facts are that the US action has little foreign credibility and little foreign endorsement precisely because we're treating it like a colonial venture. Bush can talk "freedom" and "human rights" and "WMD" and "terrorism" and his actions are "contracts issued by Americans" "contracts issued to American or American favored companies" "CPA appointed IPC" "CPA subordinate to CentCom" "Americans will determine when and under what conditions Iraqis will be allowed sovereign status" "Americans insist on Iraqi 'exemption' from OPEC production quotas" (i.e. "Americans able to manipulate global supply of light and intermediate crude.")

As long as there's this huge disconnect between Bush's talk and the administrations actions, most of the rest of the world just writes Bush's rhetoric off as so much self-serving bull****.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
$10 billion of the $20 billion is in the form of a loan to the future Iraqi gov't.

Ramo, that got deleted in the House/Senate conference. The bill as enacted is a pure grant. No loan is involved.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Ramo
$10 billion of the $20 billion is in the form of a loan to the future Iraqi gov't.

There are no loans in the spending bill that passed. But in the end all the money ends up back in the hands of the Bechtels and Halliburtons.

Highly qualified Hallibutron has figured out a way to buy gasoline at 2.65 a gallon from kuwait and sell it at 15 cents a gallon to the Iraqis, allthough it is scarce. They most certainly must know what they are doing. I guess the gas is travelling via limosuine.

[MichaeltheGreat]

So one Senator and one Representative, and some innuendo about "some" would "privately" support such a bill?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


Ramo, that got deleted in the House/Senate conference. The bill as enacted is a pure grant. No loan is involved.

Yep.

[Ned]

dp