If we do not have enough troops to win bring up the draft and get the required boots on the ground.

But won’t drafted troops be demoralised entering a conflict perceived as failing? I mean I read somewhere that a lot of people joined the Vietnam peace movement because they didn’t want to be drafted.

bmac on July 6, 2007 at 6:27 PM

Is this due to who they are or because they have had no other choice in the last 1400 years? Give them the choice and like the other 80% of the people they will make the right one.

We could use those words. Or we could use these:

We should issue a mandatory call to arms so that the United States of America can have enough soldiers to win the generational struggle over jihad. Furthermore, a selfless service to the United States of America like miltary service will enable our citizens to truly treasure our great country as our founding fathers envisioned.

Yes words mean things. However the facts are the same. We are in a war. It matters to us and to the world wether we win or lose. Our leaders need to do whatever it takes to win the war.

Now is a draft a geart idea. No. As other posters have said there are other ways to increase our boots on the ground. But if all else fails and your country/government calls you answer the call. Wether it is “odious and authoritarian” does not enter into the discussion.

profitsbeard on July 6, 2007 at 8:47 PM

I know the feeling.

(Typing mad messes up the fingers)

He let it cool and now wants to hammer cold metal.

All you get is a maul bounced into the forehead and a sore wrist.

If he had called for 1 million men and women to volunteer on 9/12, he might have gotten 2.

If he had sent 500 troops to Iraq and acutally initiated true Shock ‘n Awe, the insurgents would never have isen …out of fear of the crazy, brutal, bloodthirsty infidel Cruisaders.

Instead, we got a pussyfooting invasion, a pussyfooting occuptation, and a pussyfooting control of the Syrian and Iranian borders.

And its hard to change from that to what should have been this late in the battle.

The spirit has gone from rage to diffidence.

And the indecisive in the west are not in the mood for admitting that we need to scrap all plans that have failed to win this conflict, so far.

And fight it hard, for real, to conquer Islamofascists everywhere that one of their jihadis raises his head.

Our fury will need to be rekindled.

Only a terrorist attack that dwarfs 9/11 will have a chance at doing that.

Till then, with Western politicians in denial, we are forced to fight with both hands tied behind our p.c. backs.

And watch our own soldiers go on trial for doing their best with these pussyfooting Rules of Engagement battling against an monstrously-ruthless and amoral enemy.

No better soldiers have ever served.

No weaker commanders have ever failed to served them well.

As far as a draft it is a DUTY for a countriy’s citizens to defend it. If you find that DUTY odious and authoritarian that’s your call.

Truly, I would defend the country.

We are at war with people that want to destroy our country. A victory for them in Iraq will hasten that destruction. A loss for them will help ensure our country’s survival. It is not a hard stretch to imagine our country may call us to the fight if needed.

Freedom does have certain obligations, true, but trying to argue that those obligations are a reason to not do them is illogical

Sending conscripts to fight in Iraq is not defending the country except in the most circumspect manner. Using your argumentation you can justify the draft for any military excursion including Darfur or Somolia.

I don’t mind the country (by which you really mean the federal government) calling us to fight. I do mind the country (by which I really mean the federal government) ordering us to fight. If you stop using patriotic words, and use accurate ones, it sounds a lot less appealing:

“We should institute enforced conscription so that the United States federal government can have enough soldiers to engage in whatever foreign military excursions it deems appropriate.”

I agree with this. I also agree that change is easier when the society has been through a major event like WW2. However our own society is a great example of how change happens. 40 years ago we were a divided society by race. Now we have a mostly color blind society when it comes to employment, education, etc. True racism still survives to some degree but society of 2007 is totally different than the society of 1960. The society of the South in 1960 was basically the society that had exsisted since the founding of the country. It no longer exsits in any meaningful way.

I believe that the government should have the power of eminent domain. I just don’t think the government should use that power for economic reasons to grow itself through growth of its tax base.

As far as a draft it is a DUTY for a countriy’s citizens to defend it. If you find that DUTY odious and authoritarian that’s your call.

We are at war with people that want to destroy our country. A victory for them in Iraq will hasten that destruction. A loss for them will help ensure our country’s survival. It is not a hard stretch to imagine our country may call us to the fight if needed.

Freedom does have certain obligations, true, but trying to argue that those obligations are a reason to not do them is illogical

How so?

If you cannot see how the government forcing people to go and kill other people is odious and authoritarian then I cannot convince you.

What really chaps my ass is that I bet you were incensed by the Supreme Court decision WRT eminent domain.

One final thing read this story and see if the Iraqi society is so different from ours:

http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm

Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if it was ever about the oil, it’s not now. Not mostly anyway. It clearly would have been cheaper just to buy the oil or invade somewhere easier that has more. Similarly, most Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here, and that many of us can’t wait to get back home. They realize that we are not resolved to stay, but are impatient to drive down to Kuwait and sail away. And when they consider the Americans who actually deal with Iraqis every day, the Iraqis can no longer deny that we really do want them to succeed. But we want them to succeed without us. We want to see their streets are clean and safe, their grass is green, and their birds are singing. We want to see that on television. Not in person. We don’t want to be here. We tell them that every day. It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth.

rho on July 6, 2007 at 4:45 PM

How so?

you too.

Just when I think things can’t get any more ridiculous.

Good points. But I question if it is as radioactive as it seems. Yes I know conventional wisdom says it is but is that true? Would the American people allow the media and Dems to be so anti-military if their sons and daughters were in harms way?

The vast majority of miltary familes of today are incensed at the MSM and the Dems for their treatment of our military. What would the effect be if the vast majority of American familes had a stake in the fight?

Some of societal problems might actually be better with a draft. The gang problem comes to mind.

True the younger generation would probably be against it but would the majority of Americans be against it?

Anyone got any poll numbers on this?

The debate should be what do we need to obtain victory not why we can’t achieve it. The Dems arguement: that the war is lost, that victory is immpossible, that Iraq is a tar baby that has no way out are all bogus. Bringing up the draft idea shows how bogus their arguement is. There is no reason why we can not win except the political will is not there.

unseen on July 6, 2007 at 3:34 PM

We’re in overall agreement on the need to do what is necessary to win, which would include finding ways to sustain the “surge” until it has the desired long-term effect.

Bringing back the draft, however, would be counter-productive to that end. It would take an already increasingly unpopular war and make it so politically radioactive that whatever will remained to prosecute it would disappear almost overnight.

That’s why the only people in Congress who have proposed a draft have been Democrats who see the issue not in terms of a war strategy but as a cynical tool of domestic politics. I wouldn’t consider the draft as a last option, as much as not an option at all. Not if we’re interested in winning, anyway.

Maybe it is. I understand you point, I just don’t agree with it. Your central point says that a whole subsection of the human population is inherently different than the rest of it. History says differently.

People are people are people. So what if they haven’t imporved our society. We are not trying to improve their societies we are trying to give them choices. You do not have “freedom” if you have no choice. Islam narrows the choices, we should expand those choices.

For the record I am not for the draft as the first option. It should be the last option used but it still needs to be an option. As your post states there are more and better ways to get the required numbers of boots on the ground.

My point is that many are saying we can’t win because we do not have enough soldiers. Or that it can’t be done. I suggested the draft to put the lie to that point. It is not a matter of not enough troops, it is a matter of not enough poliical will to get the required troops.

There are many ways to get the number of troops: better pay, a call to arms by our leaders, and a draft are just some of them.

The debate should be what do we need to obtain victory not why we can’t achieve it. The Dems arguement: that the war is lost, that victory is immpossible, that Iraq is a tar baby that has no way out are all bogus. Bringing up the draft idea shows how bogus their arguement is. There is no reason why we can not win except the political will is not there.

If we lose this war the blame needs to be leveled at all those that did not do what was needed to win the war. REPs and Dems in Congress, the Media and the Whitehouse are at the top of that list.