Is it time for the US to reinstate the draft?

[Whaleboy]

No worries Shawn, I'm not too familiar with what happened with the draft during the Vietnam war, and anti-war protesters in the last few years, though your point there doesn't surprise me. The logical response for a US citizen is to cause the end of the Republican government by any non-violent means as soon as possible. I would suggest voting the chickenhawks out but that would sound a little empty considering the next election is in 2008... still is there any other option?

[Mr. Harley]

The only other option is for people like Berzerker, Ted Stryker, and myself to vote in Republican primaries and get those supporting Bush out prior to 2008. Sadly, due to our own theocratic issues, that doesn't seem to be happening due to the dynamics of our primary system and the religious fundamentalists. If you want to see how insane this administration is - Google Dr. W. David Hager. He's from my state, and most of the negative things about him are true. For even more jollies, find the stories now from his ex-wife, it reminds me of the Victorian period, the fine upstanding Anglican public servants whose private lives were a trifle interesting. BTW - where are you located - and good night, I have to get some sleep before going into work tonight.

[Whaleboy]

Wow... different timezones and nightshifts... nary a good combination! I'm in the UK, looking forward to a well-deserved bank holiday on Monday .

[Ted Striker]

Good posts by Shawn and Whaleboy.

I DO see the country going towards a theocratic system led by the Shia. I really don't see that as a necessarily BAD thing. The danger to the US externally and the surrounding areas is little. The danger within Iraq is a bloodbath and the Sunnis will lose since they are outnumbered and don't have any of the oil money. The fundies seem to enjoy reprisals and this crap has been going on for hundreds of years. Al Queda in Iraq seems to want to spur the whole thing on, calling the Shias a false religion this week, and that the Sunnis should attack them.

The external threat I DO see is, regardless of what the US does, we are teaching a whole new generation to hate us and they are so revenge minded it's only a matter of time before they take their show on the road and come to the US and start blowing things up. That's regardless if we stay or don't stay.

The real winners in this whole mess are the Kurds, who have been doing well since we invaded the first time. They will come out on top regardless of the outcome. The only danger to them if we pull out is what would Turkey do. I don't think the Turks would mess with them because of the US protection.

I do think we're stuck there in some way shape or form regardless if there is a pullout or not. Perhaps a base or two would remain inside of Kurdish controlled areas.

The interesting thing about this is that the Iraqis are well aware that a majority of the American people no longer support the war efforts there.

And we STILL have 3 1/2 more years of this leadership. It's going to be a loooong wait.

[Zkribbler]

I don't agree that "staying" means "staying for years."

I've already advanced the Zkribbler Plan: (1) Determine the number of trained troops which are necessary to contain the insurgency; (2) When Iraqi troops are trained, withdraw coalition troops in equal number to maintain the proper troop level. This way, Iraqis who want the U.S. out can obtain that desire by joining the Iraqi army.

Sen. Russell Feingold (D - WI) has proposed a Dec. 2006 target date for the withdrawl of coalition troops. This is not a fixed date, but can be moved if the situation does not permit it. The senator wants to: (a) focus officials on doing what needs to be done in order to safely pull out; and (b) send a clear message to the Iraqis that we are not there to stay.

Both the Zkribbler Plan and the Feingold plan attempt to reduce the number of new insurgents. First, we were just fighting the Bathists. Then Muslim extremists joined in. Now, we're seeing Iraqi nationalist joining in order to drive our the foreign troops. We have to take the steam out of this new group.

Inserting US draftees into mix would make matters worse. Draftees would hate being there, would see the local population as being the "enemy," and would shoot everything in sight. This is what happened in Vietnam. It's the surest way I know to mkae ourselves even more hated.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

And we STILL have 3 1/2 more years of this leadership. It's going to be a loooong wait.

Maybe a little off topic (sorry), but why do you think that the next president will act otherwise ? My guess is that the next pres will continue current policy, so you have at least 7 1/2 years before any change.

[Zkribbler]

The next congressional election is in fifteen months.

T'row the bums out!!

[Ramo]

Leaving ain't an option. Period. As much as I love Feingold, he's dead wrong in this respect.

The Iraqi gov't, especially its Ministry of Defense, is barely functioning, unable to supply its own troops, and it wasted the vast majority of the funding it got (1.25 out of 1.27 billion $ of its budget under investigation for corruption, and they literally lost about half a billion). There's no reason to think that their troops have been properly trained. We can expect years more of heavy committment, if we want to get the job done. If we leave, we're gonna see a Sunni coup against the Iraqi gov't, quite possibly successful. This means a protracted civil war - with set piece battles, and all of Iraq's neighbor's joining in on the fun. It's an incredible shame to think that this could've been averted two years ago, even one year ago, a nonsectarian civil society could've been constructed, but now there are simply no good options.

What can be done:
1. Re-examing our RoE. Frankly, it's heavy-handed and totally unjustified in an urban environment. If we see an RPG coming from an apartment building, don't bomb the apartment building! Not only do we kill innocent civilians, Iraq's clan based society means that all the victims' brothers and cousins are gonna join the insurgency. The Brits have had more realistic RoE, and it's a terrible blow to the occupation that several thousand of them are leaving next year. As I asking, why oh why can't Blair be in charge?

2. Take another look at our detention policies. There's no better recruiting poster for Iraq than Gitmo. This whole business is still mindboggling to me. According to various studies, such as Red Cross, a lot of the people the vast majority of people we're detaining there and (less prominently, but no less importantly) at Iraqi facilities are being held unjustifiably. There's no transparency, contact with relatives, etc. A large scale prisoner release program is needed ASAP. Luckily we are going in that direction (there were some prisoners released from Abu Ghraib today), if at an anemic pace.

3. Invest a whole lot more into training Iraqis. All reports indicate that the Iraqis are inadequately trained. The Iraqi gov't also needs some armor. It'll be outclassed by the insurgents, so it needs an edge. I don't know where the resources for this sort of stuff would come from. We might have to do something atrocious like *gasp* raising taxes.

4. Put more pressure into getting the Iraqis to compromise (say, using more aid a carrot for the gov't to act a little more reasonably, i.e. by instituting a FPTP electoral system, etc., etc.).

5. Maybe get some support from neighboring countries. I have no idea about the specifics on how to get it done, but then again, I'm not President of the US.

[Ted Striker]

I agree with Ramo's points. Those are things that can be done TODAY, and that's the path to victory.

It's pretty damn straightforward so I don't see what the hell the problem is.

Well, I'll tell you what the problem is, it's that guys like Colin Powell are gone from the Administration, and those that have common sense are not being listened to.

[Lancer]

Since Iraq is pregnant I suggest we start humping Iran next.

[Whaleboy]

I think Ted would prefer Turkey. OTOH, I'm of the opinion that Russia needs some good ol' fashioned violating...

[GePap]

Training a Shiite army to supress the Sunni's won;t particularly solve the issue. And if the Brits have had it simpler it is not simply because of better training, but because they have a less dangerous area. And lest be honest, while the Brits have had great experiences in keeping locals in line and not shooting, their track record upon leaving is rather uneven. Just look at Iraq....

This war was FUBARed from day 1 by this admin., and what has been unleashed will in all likelyhood not please anyone. One hopes the Iraqis want peace, but right now the indication si that they certainly will fight for their political aims, and its obvious that there is little agreement in Iraq about Iraq's future.

US troops can only help keep the violence down, for a while.

[GePap]

And as for a draft:

Its always funny how the same people who babble on about the founders and original intent are the same people who back that one thing which the founders probably found most injurios to a free state: a large permanent professional military. That is something the uS never had until 1947. But I guess as long as you have shotguns, letting the state have 500,000 men under arms at all times is just fine and dandy. And letting the government send 100,000 troops of to fight with the barest of popular mandates, well, that is the way the LORD wanted it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Its always funny how the same people who babble on about the founders and original intent are the same people who back that one thing which the founders probably found most injurios to a free state: a large permanent professional military.

Maybe those Founders were on to something.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui



Maybe those Founders were on to something.

I personally don;t give a **** about the founders, meaning I have no problems with a large permanent military. One would ask a bit more intellectual consistency from certain parties though.