The Draft -- an inevitability if we elect anyone except Kucinich?

[Mairead]

Kucinich is committed to pulling our kids out of Iraq. Unless I'm mistaken, he is the only one so committed (I thought Al Sharpton was too, but I just checked his site and found no mention).

Which means that all other candidates favor leaving them there for some undefined period of years.

Our forces are already completely overextended, and SmirkCo is not currently pursuing any other adventurism, so the situation now is the same as we'll have after the election, unless we put Kucinich in office.

So it looks to me as though, to relieve the pressure on military staffing, EVERYbody except Kucinich will have to institute a draft.

Yes? No?

[Terwilliger]

1. I'd like to draft Kucinich to be the Dem choice for President

he's the ONLY one who truly opposes Bush

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. Here is how I see it:

Will Oppose the Draft:

Al Sharpton
Dennis Kucinich
Carol M. Braun
John Kerry
Wesley Clark
Howard Dean


Might Support the Draft:
Dick Gephardt
John Edwards


Will Support the Draft:
Chicken Hawk Joe Lieberman

[Cuban_Liberal]

3. No.

Kucinich's plan is unworkable, although laudatory. He sounds great on paper, but loses it when it comes to nitty-gritty details, e.g., where specifically does he propose to find the 130K troops (what countries)? It's all well and good to prate on about ideals, but DK is woefully short on specifics.

[revcarol]

7. Kofi Annan has said that he can get committments for 50,000 troops,

within a month, and that is just off the top of his head.So wouldn't you like to have 50,000 American troops troops leaving within 2-3 months?????

IF THE UN IS IN CHARGE, many nations will step up to the plate. The big-bucks nations will contribute big $$, and many smaller nations will contribute troops.

But how about the issue of "the draft?" That's the question here. Bush has already instituted compulsory extension of service in Afghanistan and Iraq, the "virtual" draft.WHO, among the candidates,would go along with a draft because the troops are over-stretched? Dean would stay there for several years, CMB would too. Clark just thinks the troops need to be more efficiently managed, but doesn't really have a plan.So WHO would be able to solve the "overstretched Army except Kucinich?

[Cuban_Liberal]

9. Which only leaves us 80, 000 short.

Kucinich's plan is not superior to anyone else's; in fact, others are probably superior, since they deal with real numbers rather than rosy scenarios.

[Padraig18]

23. True.

i've seen no evidence that the UN can or will provide even a preponderance of the troops neccessary to stabilize Iraq until it can become self-governing and self-policing. Dennis' plan has a very emotional 'gut level' appeal, because Iraq is a godawful mess, but the other candidates have much more viable and realistic plans for the transition period and for the withdrawl of American troops from Iraq, IMO.

[Mairead]

11. Not only did you ignore the question, you failed to demonstrate

that there'd be any need for the number of troops you claim. Remember: there's a huge difference between the size of the force needed to be a hated occupying army and that needed to supply transitional public-safety services.

Read Uri Avnery's 'Bitter Rice' essay for a first-hand description of the difference.

[Cuban_Liberal]

13. I 'ignored' nothing.

I simply rejected the premise, which I find naive.

[Fovea]

21. But also unworkable

is the idea of nation building a modern Iraq. A modern Iraq is no more stable than a modern Afghanistan, and for the same reason.

There is no motivation higher than tribal/religous in the cultures of Iraq at this point. The Baath Party crushed whatever unity there was even before the Iraqi invasion into Kuwait.

There are three nations in Iraq, and no one of them can prevail.
Further, a serious effort to implement any policy among the Kurds will cause a breach in our relations with the Turks.
Favor the Shiia, and the Sunnis will invade the south again,which in turn will tempt the Kurds to attack the Sunnis from the north. At that point the Turks invade the Kurds. If that happens, about the last place I want our boys and girls stranded is in the free fire zone with no meaningful rules of engagement, because no one knows from one day to the next who is shooting at whom.

If the effort to delaminate Iraq is attempted unilaterally, a very ugly time will be had by all. But at the same time, the center cannot hold.

It will take a multi state, multi cultural, and multi faith solution for the people between the rivers to live in peace. Anything else we put in place is going to be one degree of hideously tragic or another.

[corporatewhore]

4. Support Our Troops Vote Kucinich

[Brian_Expat]

5. I'm worried about the draft. . .

. . . but I am more worried about beating Bush. We will definitely have a draft if we lose to Bush, so supporting the only winning Democrat is our only hope.

[pocoloco]

20. You are right about that, and a couple more wars to go along

with it!!

[lcordero]

6. staying in Iraq to "do the job"...whatever that means

is a code phrase for supporting the draft.
Service members will be wanting to get out and they WILL be nasty about it. Service members will be stop lossed in order to maintain manpower requirements. People will be drafted because even if everybody is forced to stay in, you will still have people that get killed or maimed.

Supporting the occupation is supporting the draft. There is no way around it. Anybody who says otherwise is lying through their teeth.

One more thing, for as long as we stay there we will never see anything that even remotely resembles a decent economy. Iraq is a money pit.

[diamondsoul]

15. Most service-members ARE

"stop-lossed" already. The draft is the next logical step under anyone who hasn't vowed not to use it.

[Brian_Expat]

16. NOT at ALL

Do the job means clean up the Iraq mess and make sure al Qaeda cannot establish themselves because the US didn't have the will to finish what it started. Successfully ending this engagement does not mean "easy answers."

[dogman]

8. Clark says no draft needed.

With his experience in developing the volunteer Army he states the draft is unnecessary. By getting us out of Iraq and restoring the Army to it's purpose before Bush, the Army can once again bring in qualified people who can work as they are supposed to and serve in defense of this country, only to be used as a last resort. The problem now is that Bush has failed in his duties as CIC.

[Mairead]

12. Clark's plan is to leave our troops there, but with a NATO label on

The rest of his policy is ill-defined enough so that I can't tell exactly what he's talking about giving up, if anything. He's definitely talking about giving up exclusive control of the profits, but what does that really mean--we'll offer to share out 20% or something? He doesn't say. Which means (a) there's no way to determine how much participation there'd be by other NATO states and (b) the US would still be in charge (he's definite about that!) which means the NATO force would still be viewed by the Iraqi people the way the Lebanese viewed the IDF: hated occupiers and targets.

So Clark's choices, it seems to me, would be the same as anyone else's except DK's: keep them stop-lossed or start up a draft.

[dogman]

14. Probably not NATO

Since NATO is falling apart under Bush and is committed to Afghanistan it is more likely it would be under the UN. To abandon Iraq at this point as DK suggests is not realistic. We have created a mess and are morally responsible to see it through. Clark's plan is to develop Iraq's defensive capabilities so that we can leave. If we leave now and the ensuing turmoil that would result takes place we will have done more damage than Bush has so far. Bushco wont pay the Iraqi troops a living wage so there is no hope of them being effective. The US would be in charge of the military because we must protect our forces properly. We can't have the likes of Sir Michael Jackson exposing them to greater harm.I think his training and experience qualify him more than you me or DK to come up with the proper strategy.

[Mairead]

18. Well, Clark's policy statement *says* NATO, so....

And DK isn't talking about 'abandoning' Iraq. 'UN in, US out' is not 'abandoning'. It's abandoning the profits and the hegemony, yes, but abandoning the country or people? No.

[dogman]

19. I think he's modified that.

I believe since the new Commander of NATO has rejected the idea but not sure enough to argue the point. Turning it over to the UN is putting faith in an entity that is beyond our control and is too risky considering their track record. Their failure would still be our failure in the eyes of the world. He has said Bremer should be removed and civilian control and economic control be turned over to nonUS authority. I think you would find he is not that far from DK in most aspects other than military. I myself think DK is a hell of a guy but could not beat Bush under the present circumstances. I feel that socially they are probably very close in their thinking.

[amber dog democrat]

10. Maybe we need to let it happen

It would be interesting to see how long we would be starting wars and invading other countries if the wrong kids get drafted. Or more likely public out cry will put a stop to this war mongering insanity we are headed into. Anyone remember Vietnam?

[Skwmom]

17. Inevitable if you elect a commander in chief that the troops

won't respect (After Bush they are in no mood to have another crappy commander-in-chief). Dean's evading the draft, trying to mislead the public into thinking his brother served in the armed forces (this stunt just shows you how much of a pass Dean has been given in the press - why else would he feel that he could pull this type of dishonest crap), his using the Iraq war for political gain (what else can you call it when he is on record supporting a unilateral attack and supporting a resolution basically the same as what was passed), and invoking soldiers killed in Iraq to try to skirt questions about his past statements and records is not going to endear Dean to the military (and you can bet that Rove will make sure that every person in the military and their family members know these facts about Dean).

[Mairead]

22. Is everyone really so okay with the idea that a draft is inevitable?

Or is everyone taking for granted that DK will be our next prez?

Because my basenote analysis isn't a joke. It certainly looks as though everyone who plans to go on occupying Iraq -- and that means everyone except DK -- will be faced from Day Zero with the same problem SmirkCo has now: (a) too few military to be an occupying army; (b) too little willingness to sign up to die for oil profits; and (c) fierce feelings of resentment on the part of the military and military families who want out but are being kept against their will.

The only way out of that is: the draft. So why is DU seemingly so uncaring? Is the truth so unpalatable that it's head-in-the-sand time?

[GreenArrow]

24. You'll get no argument from me

A draft is coming either way. I think people will be surprised how quickly the Dems jump to support one. It's simply a question of US foreign policy, which is that we control the world's resources for our benefit and those of our collaborators, at the expense of the vast majority of the population, both here and there. Kucinich appears willing to rethink this fundamental viewpoint, which is one reason he has no chance. It's good to be king, and even though many people have qualms about some of the things kings must do to keep their power, they'll be willing to sacrifice, deny or rationalize their concerns to keep on living the way that they are used to living.

[Mairead]

25. How strange that we're not getting arguments--or screams-- from anyone

(I don't count the 'arguments' that simply dismiss without thought)

There are a fair number of draft-age DUers. Where are they on this issue? Are they all at the right-wing end of the spectrum, eager to go over there and kill their quota next summer?

[rdfi-defi]

26. no, i am not okay with a draft

with our current forien policy in place, a draft is inevidable. look at the signs, stop loss orders, $10,000 bonuses to stay enlisted and we started sending more troops to west africa. north korea looms.

stop talking about "do the job" "failure in the eyes of the world" and other such crazy talk, the current "job" we are doing is called impearilism, we have already "failed in the eyes of the world" when we let bush co. steal the election and run around the world like mad men. if you don't accept that as failure just look at the situation in iraq, if you don't agree that our war in iraq is a failure already what is it about bush you don't like anyway.

to avoid a draft we need to change our forien policy, i only see one candidate with a plan to do that, dennis kucinich

[redqueen]

27. Head-in-the-sand time started about 12 years ago.

Back when we were sold Clinton as the 'big dog'.

Yes, I think that many people are fooling themselves, and I understand why.

When all the world's experts and all this forum's 'experts' and every single paid whore in the mainstream media tells these frightened people that no matter what they do they simply CAN'T POSSIBLY expect to achieve any radical change in US foreign (imperial) policy, what the hell else should we possibly expect?

Nearly every single soul in this country is so heavily invested in the status quo that they're willing to avert their eyes while innocents are killed... and blame their blase attitude on 'politics' ('well that's just how it is, and anyone that doesn't think so is naive / stupid / foolish / dreaming / well-intentioned but being used by the 'enemy'). This really SICKENS ME.

I don't know when Americans started being such 'thank you sir may I have another' quitters, but I'm not joining the club.

I will vote for Kucinich, and will vote for ABB come election day (pretty sure, anyway). But this is the last time.

I sincerely believe that anyone who points to the scant differences between the hydra's heads and says it's worth bending over for the corporatocracy has their head firmly in the... sand.