What the fuck?
What is this guy taking?
More below the fold.
All highlights are my own.
The Gates Commission, in considering the transition from a draft to a volunteer force, optimistically assumed that young Americans would come to the colors if the nation went to war with any country that presented a conventional threat. Unconventional, non-state warfare didn't enter into the commission's calculus. It recommended keeping the selective service mechanism in place for the remote possibility that the draft would be needed to fill out the force if the nation was engaged again in all-out war.
Um, first of all, we were told that Hussein had WMD - clearly a nonconventional item last time I checked. Agreed, this turned out to be spectacularly wrong but other factors have come into play since then.
Such a commission could consider why recruiting incentives seem insufficient to attract today's youth. Should we consider a new approach based on a different set of inducements? If young Americans and their parents understood why a favorable outcome in Iraq is in our nation's vital interest (and is not just a do-good effort to deliver the Iraqis from oppression) perhaps some of the stigma of serving would disappear.
A good outcome in Iraq can be described undeniably as a "Good Thing". But, going into Irag in the first place was not in our vital interests (although, Afghanistan was, and we had international support for that). Disfigurement, dismemberment, and death are difficult disincentives to overcome when you don't have much of a reason for going in. But, there are plenty of college Republicans who voice considerable support for the war - give them a call Mr. Krohn.
Those who see value in a preemptive approach to public affairs make the case that our commitment to Iraq should be explained clearly before growing disenchantment becomes more widespread. How hard is it to acknowledge the obvious -- that the war we have now in Iraq bears little resemblance to the war we began? Yet the war we have today against fanatics and insurgents is far more serious than the one we started. Ironically, our enemies don't seem to have a recruiting problem.
Ya know, I could highlight the whole thing. Before we occupied Iraq, there was one terrorist - Saddam Hussein. Now, there are thousands and more on the way. Our enemies don't have a recruiting problem?!? I wonder why the fuck that is?!?
The Gates Commission report did accomplish its main objective of making the case that an all-volunteer force was feasible if pay was raised to marketplace levels. But it did not foresee a time when economic incentives would be insufficient. A new study might fill this void.
We don't need a new study. We need a new administration. The war is unpopular because there was no national interest to protect, no international support for the war, a growing insurgency that also views the war as an occupation (Oh, Charlie, did you hear? It's in it's last throes, ya know.), no administrative support for the war (no talk of enlistment, cutting budgets for supplies, benefits, medical care), and an overbearing recruiting strategy that threatens our youth if they don't enlist.
Lt. Colonel Krohn goes on to discuss the problems that lowering recruitment standards may have on the quality of the armed forces. Then ends with:
The downward spiral in recruiting calls for positive and forceful action by leadership in the White House and Congress, which must ultimately take their case to the public. If the debate degenerates into political bickering, any chance of reform will collapse. Holding elected and appointed officials responsible for events abroad and outside our control is self-defeating. But holders of high office here should realize the importance of keeping the electorate involved and informed as a condition for holding the country together in the days ahead.
Holding Bush accountable for the mess in Iraq is self-defeating? No, Mr. Krohn, the words you want are impeachable offenses. And, it's a natural consequence of his intents and behaviors.