(After sending my brother to read the comments section of this one blog I'm talking abut here, he emailed me saying he loved it and hoped to see it on my blog. I did post it tonight and for shits and giggles, have included it here for your amusement, critique, enjoyment, etc.)
Recently on a comment thread on a conservative blog, a discussion went kind of off-track of the blogger's post request which was essentially trying to draw a correlation between Democrats cheering over their win on the 7th and terrorists cheering the same event. The argument itself was fully loaded, a bait if you will, and I wasn't about to get caught in that quagmire. This country's already in one so why put myself personally into another? It's like trying to find a corner in a circular room; it just ain't gonna happen.
The discussion in the comments then shifted into a "What are the options re: Iraq?" line of questioning and off I went. Here was the basic premise of my argument.
We're went into Iraq unprepared and without enough men to secure the border quickly and securely, we didn't pacify Iran and other surrounding hostiles from becoming involved with Iraq in the early stages, and we didn't plan properly for a post-Saddam Iraq, i.e., winning the heart and minds.
At this point we're pretty much bogged down in a situation where we can't go backwards, due to the risk of leaving Iraq in the state that it's in which, in my opinion, will make us even more unsafe than we already are.
We also can't go forward. We breeze into towns, clear the terrorists, leave, and then they come back. They disappear into crowds, they uses disguises and kidnap people, only to leave them bound, tortured, and dead on a corner somewhere east of gy-bip. They've formed into sectarian groups, created their own militias and death squads, and are now taking out decades of angst on each other, kidnapping, killing, sniping, bombing, dropping mortars on each others, and blowing each other up every single day. Sometimes, we get caught in the middle of it. The police are corrupt and have been infiltrated by the very people we're fighting, the Iraqi security force doesn't appear able to do anything about the situation, and even the politicians, I bet, are playing a hand in this with certain ethnic loyalties already in place.
So as you can see, we can't go backward, and we're really having a tough time going forward. What are we going to do? Well, according to most conservatives, the best idea is to - yes, you guessed it, "stay the course," that lovely soundbite George Bush and the pro-war crowd have been pushing for over a year now in their efforts to define with political party is both better served at leading the country through war, as well as which political affiliation means you support the troops versus you hate them and want them to die, basically.
Now, as much as I recognize the blunders made since the moment we diverted from Afghanistan, I can understand some of the argument made by the conservatives as to why we must stay and fight. The point is no matter what got us here, what mistakes were made, we are here now and something needs to be done. We need to finish this shit fast, we need to finish it right, and we need to finish it like...yesterday.
My solution?
Reinstate the draft. We need more boots on the ground, a lot more boots. We need enough soldiers on the ground that we can secure the country's borders, make a bigger presence felt all throughout the area, and show that without a doubt, we will not abandon the Iraqis and that although we're tired of this shit, we're not leaving until it's finished.
Perhaps that last point is what the conservatives mean by "stay the course;" that we're not leaving until this is finished. Well, if that's the case, how long do you propose we stay there? We can't babysit the Iraqis for the rest of history and I don't think the American public can take too much more of this and for that matter, neither can the Treasury.
Start the draft. Call up another quarter to a half a million troops, get them all in Iraq, and just blanket the nation, pacify the resistance, restore order and infrastructure, get the Iraqis up in arms and security-ready, and then get the fuck out of dodge.
Given all the rhetoric over the last couple years from conservatives about how liberals are anti-American, anti-troop, pro-terrorist - I think a draft would be a great idea to see just who's who when it comes down to it. And the nice thing about a draft is that it's non-partisan. It doesn't know if you're a liberal or a conservative, a Democrat or a Republican (or an Independent-Republican-Lite Joementum, either), pro-war or anti-war. All it knows, essentially, is a number. And if your number's called, off you go.
I don't see how anyone could argue with staying in the fight but committing enough force to win it quickly. After all, it's been commented on that this is WWIII, a fight between good and evil, the great battle of civilization.
Well, if the war is really that immense, that important, that epic...
...should we really be fighting it with just 140,000-150,000 troops then? I mean, in the "great battle for civilization," having less than 250,000 troops just seems so minute, so uneventful, so...
...so noncommittal.
C'mon, are we going to win this shit or what? If we are, if we want to, we need to ramp this shit up 10-fold and really have a war.
If the threat is getting beheaded on my walk to the grocery store in West Philadelphia, I want a force that can handle the enemy hands down, no questions asked. I want a force even the ancient Romans at the peak of their empire would've curled up in fear at the sight of.
Yet what's the response on one particular conservative site when it comes to reinstating the draft? Well, read for yourself...
A DRAFT? That's your answer?
We don't need a draft. We need an American electorate with at least a 5 year attention span, and the will to operate in our own best interests.
A DRAFT?
Utter bewilderment, it seems.
Philly [that's me], you're starting to sound hysterical. I'm 51 years old. I sure wouldn't be affected much by a draft.
The draft is not a response. That's like me asking you "chocolate or vanilla?", and you yelling PIGS!
Suggesting a draft, a committment to throw the necessary resources to win this thing once and for all, the ultimate sacrifice...is received as the difference between ice cream and livestock. Clearly, not serious about the war.
Philly, I don't think you have provided an answer. Are you advocating a draft as the answer to the situation we find ourselves in?
My answer to your question is this. We need to win this war at all costs. If that means implementing a draft, so be it.
However, I don't think it does. I think it has more to do with having an all out assault on those we are really at war with, such as the Iranians and Syrians. I don't think we can be at war and play nice at the same time.
Notice the wording. I didn't answer the question, even though I did by suggesting a draft and then next thing they say is if that's how it's gotta be, then that's how it's gotta be. But this person doesn't think it does. We just have to start engaging the Syrians and Iranians, I'm guessing with....
...the same 140,000-150,000 troops we currently have getting the life sucked out of them over in Iraq. Hmmm....
You're gonna like this one.
I think implementing a draft is a peachie idea... Drag every one of those filthy lib hippies in and force them to put up or shut up. Perhaps if the libs had more skin in the game they might sing a different tune... (not holding my breath though).
and especially this one...
G-Man, and the offspring of the elite will have their usual deferments and "National Guard", right? LOL...
That's the nice thing about the draft. Whether you're an anti-American, anti-military lib, you're eligible for the draft. Whether you're a conservative wartime sidelining cheerleader, you're eligible for the draft. That way, we get to see who's really who.
And the comment about elitists getting deferrments and National Guard? Apparently, some people need to be reminded just who's been running the country the last few years.
Then of course, we have comments trying yet again to differentiate between conservative and liberals and their willingness to go fight.
Odd how no draft is required to induce me and mine into service... Same goes for a lot of conservatives... Why is the country split 50/50, but the military is like 75/25?
There's an awful lot of college Republicans these days that I think are still doing there part "over here" instead of "over there." Anyone care to address that one?
By the way, in case you didn't get the memo on Osama's whereabouts:
On the Afghan-Chinese-Pakistani boarder in a cave. Haven't we told you this before? Nice argument and way to dodge explaining anything about Iraq. You may tell your talking point masters you have done well in your diarrhea of the mouth today.
But anyway, this war isn't a war of vengeance and its isn't about Osama. ItÂs about a group of religious fanatics, some of whom run whole countries, trying to take over the world. But I would like to see him dead. But unfortunately, Osama, being smart, uses diplomacy against us and hides in places we won't go for silly little diplomatic reasons. Hey man, I don't get it either. I say fuck the dumb shit and tell the Chinese if they know what's good for em they'll let us look around thier mountain range.
Osama doesn't matter, it's just about religious fanatics; different ones perhaps that Osama inspired and who's ability to remain on the run has only emboldened them and their mission.
Osama's also on the Afghan-Chinese-Pakistani. All that crap in Path To 9/11 about us not wanting to violate somesovereignn nation's airspace? Well, it's the same shit apparently that we're doing now. What happened to cowboy diplomacy? What happend to "with us or against us?" What happened to pre-emptive warfare, facing threats before they materialize, and the unitary executive and George Bush being the leader of the United States Armed Forces who's job, in his own words, is to do everything possible and within his means to protect the American people?
That comment isn't even done yet so let me pull out my talking points from it before I move on.
"Stay the course" ment stay in Iraq. Not hold on to a set of tactics like a suicide pact. Of course, you don't like Bush's tactics and besides, can't even tell where we are at war or with whom or with what. I know the difference but I don't like a lot of Bush's tactics either. Or what the military has been coming up with in its tactics or its advice it gives Bush. Call me crazy, but I just don't think we're going to win hearts and minds in Iraq. What do you think? I think we should start fixing this problem by bombing terrorist training and supply bases across the Syrian and Iranian boarder and my reducing Ramadi and most of Anbar to about 3 inches tall. What's your idea?
Stay the course means stay in Iraq. I had no idea. But apparently, the idea that we should start bombing and attacking Syria and Iran with 140,000-150,000 troops stuck right in the middle, in the midst of a civil war in Iraq, makes sense. And he has the gall to ask me what my idea is, even though by this point, I've already hammered the idea of a draft a number of times already.
Yet for the sake of clarity, I reiterate myself.
Wait a second. I thought the President, through the idea of "unitary executive,", in charge ultimately of the armed forces, who can circumvent certain laws and institute others "in a time of war" has broad and sweeping powers with how to conduct said war? I believe he said he'd do "everything in his power" to protect Americans. Do I have that right?
I think the President could very easily issue a signing statement , "or something," making his interpretation of any laws or procedures regarding reinstating a draft moot and simply reinstate it, due to national security needs.
Does anybody here not want this to be over as quickly as possible and minimize as many deaths as possible? or would you rather drag it out?
We could end this quickly enough by pulling out the troops, but at the risk of facing the repercussions of a failed terrorist infested state launching attacks at a later time. - Ruled out
We could simply do nothing really different, stay the course, and continue playing whack a mole in an unsecured country, where sectarian violence is the daily norm., now, where hundreds if not millions of Iraqis are fleeing their country, and death squads and militias run the streets. - Ruled out
Or we could vastly increase our presence, via a draft, providing a much larger force to be reckoned with, one that will surely have a much larger impact in quelling violence and easing Iraqi's fears of a drawdown, as well as having the effect of quarantining Iran into starting to play by "the rules" considering the force we could amass right near their border. Throw some extra troops by Iran. Throw some by Syria. Throw some by Afghanistan. Completely seal the country, prevent terrorists from those countries from entering or transporting arms to insurgent groups, yadda yadda.
Hmmm..... - I don't see anything necessarily wrong, anti-American, liberal, or terrorist appeasing about that last idea, though surely someone here will prove me wrong.
Someone responds!
1.) The libs won't sit still for it.
2.) If it were enacted, the increase in force size would take quite some time to come on line. We severely downgraded our training facilities to balance the budget sometime ago (remember all those base closures & the base closure commision?) and we wouldn't be able to force feed that many new recruits through the existing system. In fact, our recruiting goals (that have been largely met for some time now) pretty much max out our current training capabilities... So we'd need to reacquire existing training bases and in some cases (where the facilities have been sold off)completely start from square one. Your force increases wouldn't even start to show until probably about 4 years down the road and then it would only be a trickle. It would not be in anyone's interest to send undertrained troops into the field. So until we got our training facilities back on line to truly present a viable increase in troop strength would likely be more like 10 years down the road.
I won't question point #1 but point #2 and the time it takes to train a force I will. If we can't train enough soldiers in a timely fashion that can then be applied to this situation in Iraq, how are we managing to do it with the Iraqi security forces? I've been reading on conservative sites for some time that the Iraqis are standing up, increasing their troop andbattalionn counts, armored divisions, how they're taking over security of various area of the country, and how they've been getting trained at various bases of our allies around the world.
Yet we can't do this with our own men and women? Start having enhanced, lightning training in specific duties through the help of our allies? Surely you jest because ultimately, if it would take too long to train our own additional troops to fight in Iraq, then what good are the Iraqi security forces that we've been training over the last three years and how are they going to secure their nation if it's going to take too long to get them all trained? If they are unable to secure their own nation and need to be trained as well as Americans, then how long is that going to take?
Then they change the subject.
You voted into power several people. Jack Murtha, who said we should pull our troops immediately and redeploy to Okinawa. John Kerry, who said our troops were terrorizing women and children in the dead of night. And then insulted their intelligence with the "get stuck in Iraq" comment. Your people voted out Joe L, who had enough integrity to stand with his vote, while the others whined that Bush lied to them, even though they had the same intelligence as he did, and turned their back on the troops even though we have troops committed.
There is no need to go back and find quotes of those you just put in power SUPPORTING THE WAR in Iraq. That is just too easy.
So, the Donks ran on a cut and run strategy, no?
And you're gloating because they won.
And you are now for re-instating the draft.
And putting 400 to 500 thousand troops over there.
Riiight.
But I'm not having any of that.
Don't change the subject. We're debating thefeasibilityy of a draft. Try to stay on board.
...
Who's gloating? I don't think I recall gloating much at all, if any, today. We're discussing what to do in Iraq, not what John Kerry said or how Lieberman stood his ground. That's yesterday's news. The election was 6 days ago.
Let's try to stay focused because it's now Nov. 13th and the war continues to rage on.
And then they do it again.
PB, you are the one off topic. Maybe you should go back and read ALa's post?
...
Besides, you are not seriously for the draft. You are just baiting.
So I reiterate. Again.
Just so we're clear:
The consensus here opposes pulling out, redeployment, etc for reasons that don't bare repeating, yet again. We can drop that subject since obviously it's not going anywhere.
The two other alternatives are stay the course, with 140,000-150,000 troops and try to stave off a civil/sectarian war that is killing upwards of 100 people a day...
...or...
Reinstate a draft, throw a few hundred thousand extra troops at the problem, and really finish this shit once and for all.
Honestly, out of the three possible choices presented, the one that really even comes close to providing a real solution to ending the violence, rooting out the terrorists, and sending a message that we can and we will face any threat, anywhere, with overwhelming support and that we simply cannot be stopped is clearly option #3.
This is what it boils down to.
Pull out, stay the course, or commit a force and make that sacrifice, as tough as it might be, that would be more than capable of handling the task.
You do the math.
And I elaborate a little more.
"Besides, you are not seriously for the draft. You are just baiting."
I'm not serious? That's like me saying you're not serious about winning this war.
I've come to realize a number of things and one of them being that an immediate pullout is not the answer. The next is that we're in a fucking bad situation here, essentially stuck in the mud, unable to move forward and unable to move backwards.
Since moving back is not an option, we need something that will let us move forward. That's going to be kind of hard, given the climate here, in Iraq, and the actual feasible goals we can acquire given our force in Iraq and the environment there.
We need something, a catalyst, that will give us the push to get out of the mud, get up and running again, and start getting some major accomplishments done.
Get a draft, get half a million troops there, and I think we could start moving forward quite quickly then.
That said, I'm personally resigned to Bush not being impeached for the situation he has gotten us into there. Don't even start blaming Clinton, or blaming libs. Bush's advisor was Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld said "Let's do it on the tight and narrow" when all indicators pointed to the fact that it wasn't enough. Bush is The Decider and he could've said no, we need more.
But they went and did it anyways. That's why, only to bring it up in passing, is why a number of Dems want Bush impeached.
I think an impeachment, though warranted, would be a waste of time and taxpayer's dollars and in the big scheme of things, is less important than figuring out something to do with Iraq and the threat posed by terrorists.
By all means, stay the course, though. It's what swept Republicans out of the House and the Senate, along with voter concerns of ethics and corruption, and has kept us where we are in Iraq, up to this point.
It was at that point that I had to check out for the night since it was the end of my work shift. But let's take another look at another comment I made to the accusation that libs don't understand the war or that I don't understand that we're at war.
"Stay the course" ment stay in Iraq. Not hold on to a set of tactics like a suicide pact. Of course, you don't like Bush's tactics and besides, can't even tell where we are at war or with whom or with what. I know the difference but I don't like a lot of Bush's tactics either."
I think it's less Bush's tactics that it was Rumsfeld's, Bush's long standing ally who up until 1 week before the election was staying until the end and the very next day, was out, promoting widepsread rejoicement in the jihadist world.
Way to go, Bush. The end result, Rumsfeld's departure, was good. The timing was ridiculously stupid and absurd.
Bottom line, these aren't Bush's tactics, these are Rumsfeld's and the general's on the ground. Remember - Bush listens to the generals and what the generals want, they get. Quite a surprisingstatementt to make, I know, considering so many high ranking military officer who have denounced Rumsfeld's decisions time and time again.
I must say they weren't Bush's tactics, but Rumsfeld's.
As for knowing or not knowing we're at war, I recognize we're at war. I'm reminded every day I open the newspaper, watch tv, or read the blogs. No more is it apparent when people tell me, time and time again, about how the jihadis want to chop my head off and how if we don't 'stay the course,' they'll be doing just that.
In W. Philadelphia, no less.
No shit this is a war. Didn't I already say that conservatives have said this is WWIII, the ideological clash of civilizations, the greatest and most important war there ever has been? Didn't I say that?
Yet you want to face the greatest clash of civilizations, WWIII if you will, with 140,000-150,000 troops in Iraq.
I support a draft. Let's crank this bitch up to 400,000-500,000 troops and get this shit done with already.
Yet I'm the one who gets called a terrorist appeaser based on how I vote, yet you're thinking we can win this shit (in the context of WWIII) with 140,000 troops.
That seems a little non-committal, now, doesn't it?
One would think that in the war for civilization, between good and evil, one would be willing to give it all she's got and put more on the line.....
But the conversation continued and checking back in, I find some interesting additions. Seems they support mandatory service.
I don't see the draft as elitist at all- rather the opposite.
There's a big discussion about public service at Blackfive- how to foster patriotism, unity, and national pride in our young people. The suggestion was that everyone around age 20 would have to give 2 years of service in the military, the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps.
Personally, I think that's a good idea. I'm sick and tired of elitist, spoiled brats going off to college and never giving their country a second thought. The "me generation" needs to rethink their attitude.
College Republicans anyone? Or just how about this person?
Yeah, the military isn't for everyone. I'll be the first to say that. I agree however, that all youth after high school should have to give two years of service of some sort. Peace Corps is good. I'm sure we could think of some things for the youth to do, and pay them crap to do it.
But I DO NOT like the idea of obligation. I'd say we do like Hienlen said and say you can only have the right to vote or get government services if you've done your service.
I can live with waivers for the physically unable.
Doesn't like obligation but then again, no government services or a right to vote if you haven't done your service.
Isn't that, um....obligation then for the most part?
Or how about this?
Me too, Free and FC.
I would have joined the military if I could have, but I couldn't pass the physical... but I could have gotten into the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps.
I'm just tired of these young kids who don't give a DAMN about anybody but themselves and could care less about their country or the priviledges that come with being an American.
But he didn't serve either because he couldn't pass the physical. That may or may not be his fault; conservatism can be rather debilitating but still - he didn't serve, either.
Then we just end by meandering into the completely absurd.
I wish I had joined the military now. I think it would have been good for me, but that ship sailed before it even registered as an option.
I really like the idea of mandatory service. Combat duty should remain strictly volunteer, but there is plenty else kids could do. Extend high school for another year and whup everyone into shape. Obesity rates would plummet.
I'm sure there's still time and a way, even for this person to show their pride and determination.
As for myself, I almost joined the military. Honestly, after 9/11, I almost did. That was during the time we were actually engaged with the people who are responsible ultimately for not only killing 3,000+ Americans, but also for getting us to where we are today, a nation of paranoid security, where personal politics has turned American against American, nations against each other, and have brought out some of the most vile, contemptible actions by our own nation - actions so horrible, they have to be defined and redefined to prevent people from being arrested for committing those actions in the name of national security.
I cannot fight in that kind of war willingly, and I will lay my life down that there are conservatives who talk the talk but simply will not walk the walk, not when they or they're own children are at stake of being dropped off in Iraq.
The situation is serious, I'll give it that. It's a serious fight. How serious? It depends on who you ask, really. But if, according to conservatives, this is the great epic battle of the 21st century, pitting the Biblical equivalence of good against evil, the battle of civiliations, World War III - then I think we ought to take it as seriously as it should be and we should throw the full might, force, and resource of the entire United States behind it. if that means a draft, then so be it.
Otherwise, it's not worth it.