Is it time for the US to reinstate the draft?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Okay, first off, this is not a troll.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. It seems to me that right now in the US you actually have fairly broad consensus on 4 points:

1) We fubarred Iraq
2) Pulling out now, instead of seeing things through, would only fubar Iraq even more
3) Staying means staying for years; even Rummy's saying that now
4) Our first mistake was not having enough troops to do the job; our current problem is not having enough troops to do the job; our problem if we stay will be not having enough troops to do the job.

Basically, I don't see how we "see Iraq through" without committing more troops, and I don't see how we get more troops without conscription.

So, to everybody who supports Bush's war, and everybody (like me) who opposed it but feels that we can't back out now without making things worse: is it time for a draft? And if not, why not?

[Ted Striker]

In terms of troop numbers, a draft would be the only way to do it.


But Rufus, have you considered the economic cost? We're on track to spend $700 on this war. Vietnam (in today's dollars) cost $600. There is an excellent article on the cost of the war and how money is being wasted.

For example, the Air Force is using F-15s to conduct surveillance, when slower, cheaper planes are better suited to the job.

There is also a carrier battle group stationed off the coast of Iraq, bascially sitting there doing nothing.

I'm also afraid the admin would misuse the additional troops and mismanage them. We need a regime change but it needs to happen in the USA and the Pentagon lackeys that were promoted when Rumsfeld forced those who wouldn't tow the line out.

Personally I like the Saudi suggestion of sending in an Islamic peacekeeping force. I don't know where they think all those troops are going to materialize from though..

In terms of numbers the draft is the way to go, but the economic and political repurcussions are way too high I think.

[Ted Striker]

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost taxpayers $314 billion, and the Congressional Budget Office projects additional expenses of perhaps $450 billion over the next 10 years.

That could make the combined campaigns, especially the war in Iraq, the most expensive military effort in the last 60 years, causing even some conservative experts to criticize the open-ended commitment to an elusive goal. The concern is that the soaring costs, given little weight before now, could play a growing role in U.S. strategic decisions because of the fiscal impact.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/17/MNG5GDPEK31.DTL

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
But Rufus, have you considered the economic cost? We're on track to spend $700 on this war. Vietnam (in today's dollars) cost $600.

****, I spent more on new tires last week...





I assume those are supposed to be in billions.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I agree, Ted, the political costs would be so high it would never happen. I'm not sure I agree about the economic costs, since money spent on additional troops might be money saved on number of years they're committed. But you see what I mean about the numbers.

[Pekka]

I don't think drafting would be a great idea.

However otherwise I do agree. I've also been saying this for what, like since the beginning of the war, that the amount of troops won't be able to stabilize the region enough for there to be good chance for rebuilding the infrastructure, to secure the key locations, basically enough to have the democracy rolling in.

And it'll be like this and worse, if there aren't going to be more troops..

And I agree, the worst is to first fo war, and then leave. That's the maximum destruction and misery. That's worse than no war, or brutal war.

This remains to be seen, I hope it happens though. It was played on semantics and emotions, to help Iraq and it's people, the rhetorics of bilateral action and doing things alone then, well.. time to walk the walk basically even though it's a ****ty situation. But I think it's a worthy cause and I think Bush won't pull out anyone. I just hope he commits to this more, and we'll see.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


****, I spent more on new tires last week...





I assume those are supposed to be in billions.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Pekka
I don't think drafting would be a great idea.

However otherwise I do agree. I've also been saying this for what, like since the beginning of the war, that the amount of troops won't be able to stabilize the region enough for there to be good chance for rebuilding the infrastructure, to secure the key locations, basically enough to have the democracy rolling in.

And it'll be like this and worse, if there aren't going to be more troops..

And I agree, the worst is to first fo war, and then leave. That's the maximum destruction and misery. That's worse than no war, or brutal war.

This remains to be seen, I hope it happens though. It was played on semantics and emotions, to help Iraq and it's people, the rhetorics of bilateral action and doing things alone then, well.. time to walk the walk basically even though it's a ****ty situation. But I think it's a worthy cause and I think Bush won't pull out anyone. I just hope he commits to this more, and we'll see.

But what does "commit to this more" mean? The administration is already 100% ideologically committed to it, and there's been no problem providing a financial commitment to it. The only realm where there is room for more commitment is troop strength. They need more troops, and they're not going to get them through volunteerism (recruitment is way, way, down). I don't see a viable alternative to a draft.

[Ted Striker]

The Army told the Administration they needed minimum of 500,000 troops from the start. That's alot of dudes. Unless we can pay/con someone else to do it. Pakistan and India are out so it's like there is no other choice.

The Iraqi security forces need to be given full effort.

[Pekka]

Commitment on ideological level means basically nothing when more troops is needed. Economical commitment means more though.. I guess that's reflection from ideological commitment.

Troops are needed. I don't know how much strength is devided around the globe, and how many are doing 'meaningless' tasks. All those should be used. It's the army.

If there's not enough volunteers, then there needs to be better campagns and propaganda, so that young folks join. That's it. Put more money into that thing, try some spins if it ain't working.

I'd leave the draft out of it for now. Why use draft, when Iraq or it's rebels and all that are not threatning US soil at all? I'd just forget about the draft and seek for other ways to boost up the strength.

[Pekka]

Also, picking up with the draft again.. I mean this war is already unpopular, even in US. Establishing draft again is a death blow to the whole operation. There would be such an uprising, and it would give legit position on every Bush hater and opponent, that the war would be lost eventually. Too much opposion. That's what the draft would do. So at the end, I'd think it would cost even more that way, plus not even mentioning that then there would be people dying who wouldn't even join the army or want to go there. Soldiers are, at least now, volunteers, thus accept the possibility, and that's still different, even though it's sad when soldiers give their lives as well. But at least they give. When you are drafted, that life is taken away. That's how I see it. Most people might disagree.

[Ted Striker]

Supercitizen, it's up to you to enlist and save the whole operation.

Before you had looked at the Marines but you couldn't get in. I bet with the recruiting shortages, some of those restrictions have been lifted.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Pekka
Commitment on ideological level means basically nothing when more troops is needed. Economical commitment means more though.. I guess that's reflection from ideological commitment.

Troops are needed. I don't know how much strength is devided around the globe, and how many are doing 'meaningless' tasks. All those should be used. It's the army.

If there's not enough volunteers, then there needs to be better campagns and propaganda, so that young folks join. That's it. Put more money into that thing, try some spins if it ain't working.

I'd leave the draft out of it for now. Why use draft, when Iraq or it's rebels and all that are not threatning US soil at all? I'd just forget about the draft and seek for other ways to boost up the strength.

From what I can tell -- and I deal directly with US militaryofficers in my job -- troops not in Iraq right now are simply troops waiting to go to Iraq.

As for propoganda, the problem there is that spin only works if you can also hide reality; with daily bad news coming in from Iraq, spin seems to be played out.

Hence the problem.

[GePap]

What use would a draft do?

It would take months to make new, drafted units ready to do anything, and the military as a whole is moving to scrap the ability to house and care for that many service people. Second, given that how long we stay in Iraq is more a fucntion of what the Iraqis do that what we do (if Iraqis start fighting each other, look for a mush quicker Us exit), what happens if you draft 100,000 people, spend 6 months training them, and then, woops, mission over?

As for not having enough troops at the beginning, that was not an issue of how many troops there were in the military, but a concious choice by the pentagon to show how this war could be cheap, easy, and fast. That and the piss poor and arrogant diplomacy of the pre-war period.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why are all these folks opposed to the war, also in support of a draft? It makes no sense to me.