"Plan B" must be the Draft.
Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:39:22 AM PDT
The reference is to this item from earlier in the week (courtesy of a gnostic):
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, told "Hardball" fill-in host David Gregory that if the 'surge' has not yielded success in Iraq by August 2008, then "this president, and the Republican majority from the last Congress, we do have a 'Plan B,' but we're not going to give it to the enemy."
Could Plan B be a draft? The obvious answer to the question is, "with this administration, who knows?" Seriously, the answer should be no, but then most folks thought 6 months ago that we were getting the Baker plan. But in any event, we should be all over Mr. Gingrey and the apparently 'undead' 109th Congress about this little ploy.
We need to put immediate pressure on the repo's to answer the question: "Is Plan B the draft?" You see, I don't think they can give a good answer to this question. And without a very good answer, the american people may begin to wonder about this Plan B.
Gingrey's statement is predicated, of course, on the surge not working out by August 2008 (conveniently, the time of the democratic convention, I believe). More below
There will really only be 2 options if the surge is not working: a withdrawal or an escalation. Plan B cannot be a withdrawal, however: the Preznit has said that failure is not an option, and General Pace told us a while back that Plan B is to make Plan A work. And besides, if Plan B is a withdrawal -- apparently in August 2008 -- then the enemy will simply set their alarms, hunker down, and then follow us home. So nix the withdrawal. Even if that is the obvious alternative, the repos cannot admit this.
By a process of elimination, therefore, we will say to the Gingreys, (loud enough for the american people to overhear) Plan B must be an escalation. But with what? The pentagon announced yestarday that the troops will now be pulling 15 month tours instead of 12 months; last week they announced we'll have to send 13,000 National Guard over; and sooner or later someone will notice that we are recycling the wounded (better than having them hang out at Walter Reed counting cockroaches, I suppose). As teacherken and others have pointed out, our armies are stretched to the breaking point. And we cannot afford the financial burden of escalating with contractor/mercenaries. So, could it be, might it be -- a DRAFT? The evil that no one dares speak (except Charlie Rangel).
Of course, there is no Plan B, just as Nixon had no secret plan for Vietnam. And if there is one, it isn't (I think!) a draft. But who cares? Maybe its time for the democratic party to challenge the repos on this, and make them state, straight up, that they will not, under any circumstances, even if the President demands more troops in August 2008, support a draft. You know what? I bet that a lot of them will not do that. But whether they rule out a draft or not, this debate might finally focus some attention on the fundamental reality that undermines every alternative except withdrawal: we do not have the troops, and will not have them by August 2008, to continue this disaster of epic proportions, unless we have a draft.
And finally, I gotta say something about Mr. Gingrey's apparent theory of constitutional process: I have looked over the old document pretty carefully, and I cannot for the life of me see how it allocates any responsibility or authority, let alone the war powers, to the previous congress, or to any portion of it. We have apparently gone beyond the unitary executive into heretofore undreamed of possibilities, where the president gets to pick which congress he works with. Scotty, please beam me up.
Permalink | 23 comments