Vets on Hardball debate draft [updated]

After the Pentagon came out denying that they were giving any consideration to reinstituting the draft, in opposition to Lieutenant General Douglas Lute's statement Friday, the draft continues in the news cycle.

Two Iraqi War veterans, John Bruhns and Pinelli were on Hardball with Chris Matthews and I found the exchange very interesting for a couple of reasons. Already diaried by LivesInAShoe Draft Debate on HairBall I would like to add a bit more from what both guests espoused.

Pinelli was in support of the draft; Bruhns spoke against.

Iraq War veteran Pinelli (don't remember first name) came out in favor of the draft. He argued that the reason the U.S. military is losing the war in Iraq is because they do not have the equipment they need. He said that in 2002, he told his commander that he wanted a particular truck for Christmas that would eat IEDs. What wass telling for him, was that private military contractors did have these vehicles but our military did not.

This lack of equipment, he continued, was caused by the elite in this country not having a personal vested interest in this war and the answer to that is a draft. Matthews remarked that a draft would get some of Mitt Romney's sons to which I believe Pinelli agreed.

Iraqi War veteran John Bruhns, on the other hand, argued against the draft. He said that 70% of the American people are against the war and that he could not force Americans to participate.

Matthews asked Pinelli what victory in Iraq looked like and was stunned by the answer he received. Pinelli said that everyone should read America's Secret War by George Friedman and mentioned that we had soldiers in Saudi Arabia before bin Laden pushed for them to be removed.

[Note: All Iraq War veterans supporting a continued effort in Iraq are not coming from this point of view but it is incredible that the IWV supporting the war cited this book, American military presence around the globe and not being able to involve ourselves with the country whose countrymen were responsible for 9/11.]

Matthews responded with the fact that this was imperialist and Pinelli agreed. Matthews then asked (or maybe before) who was responsible for 9/11 to which Pinelli responded Saudi Arabia but we couldn't do anything against them because they have their hand on the oil spigot.

Telling.

Iraq War veteran versus Iraq War veteran seems to be the game of the day. AP today had In the debate over Iraq, it's vet vs vet saying that

And to politicians trying to make their case in anticipation of a critical assessment on the war this September, such groups have become valuable public relations tools in the deeply partisan, pull-no-punches Iraq debate.

However, they only quote Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell as he spews venom and they entire rest of the article didn't quote a single Democrat using veterans as backdrop and pawns.

The Democrats, unfortunately, are trying to undermine the efforts of our troops and restrict the ability of our generals to carry out their mission," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said at a July news conference with Hegseth and other members of the group Vets for Freedom, which supports a continued U.S. presence in Iraq.

Later that week, Hegseth — a National Guard soldier who worked as a civil affairs officer in Samarra last year — stood behind President Bush in a news conference chastising Democrats for not passing a spending bill for the troops.

The rest of the article attempts to give both sides by talking about the organizations and political influence but does a shoddy job. How shoddy? They equate Gen. Wesley Clark and veteran former Sen. Bob Kerrey on the board of directors as being political to the opposing organization working with former White House spokesman Taylor Gross, Campaign Solutions headed by Republican consultant Rebecca Donatelli and Adriel Domenech, their press contact, who spent thirteen months in Iraq for the state department Public Affairs office.

Telling.

[Update: 14 Aug 07, 7:46 PM EDT]

I can't wait to see get that video. It is simply amazing to watch.

John Bruhns main response for no draft was that 1) George Bush took us to war under fallacy, 2) undermanned and underequipped, 3) no plan to win the peace and 4) managed with utter incompetence.

Mark Pinelli believed tha tthe reason the majority of America is against the war is because we aren't winning decisively. In other words, if we were crushing them, it wouldn't matter that they told us that it was about WMDs, aluminum tubes, 45 minute strike capability, biological weapons under Saddam's residences, unmanned drones with biological and chemical dispersing capabilities or yellowcake.

Of course, he revealed it didn't matter in the later questioning that still is remarkable.

Pinelli ssaid that Bush hasn't done a great job "selling" the real reasons for the war. He goes on to say bin Laden and the soldiers in Saudi Arabia, the restoration of the caliphate when Matthews interrupted.

Matthews said it wasn't for WMDs, Saddam, that we wanted a country as a base of opeations to which Pinelli said yes.

Pinelli's response to this staggering admission: "no attacks for the last five years."

Bruhns ended by saying that if we continue in Iraq, we will definitely need a draft so end the war. Pinelli said if we pull out, we will definitely need a draft.

Telling.