Political Reality and THE DRAFT

[Martin Eden]

Most of the debate about reviving of the draft ignores the most glaring political reality on this issue:

There will be no military draft without a new military intervention somewhere (like Iran), an escalation of the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan, or a major terrorist attack in the United States.

None of these things are to be desired, except perhaps by neocons and morons like Stu Bykofsky.

The majority of the American people want an end to the war in Iraq. Who in their right mind thinks there is sufficient political support in this country for military conscription that would subject their sons, husbands, brothers, and themselves to the meat grinder in Iraq?

I understand the arguments that rightwing armchair warriors and chickenhawks should put their money (and their lives) where their mouths are, that the burdens of national sevice and sacrifice should be shared, and that a draft might be the quickest way to get our troops out of Iraq. However, those arguments put the cart before the horse. Try to imagine a candidate for national office running on a platform to revive the draft. As things now stand, it would be political suicide.

If the draft is revived, it will be because the destructive forces of terrorism and our military misadventures have gotten much worse -- bad enough for a selfish and hedonistic public to subject themselves and their loved ones to the kind of horrors our troops experience in Iraq. THE DRAFT means that we'd have a lot more young Americans killing and dying overseas -- cannon fodder for the neocons, Big Oil, and the military-industrial complex.

[Lint Head]

1. That's why they're thinking of calling for a draft.

How else could they invade iran? :dem:

[Martin Eden]

3. Unfortunately, some here at DU agree with Charlie Rangel ...

... in their arguments FOR the draft.

[billyoc]

5. Support for the draft seems to run about 50% here at the, ahem,

"underground". :eyes:

[arewenotdemo]

8. That seems too high to me. Any DU polls on the matter?

[kenny blankenship]

4. There's also the fact that even supporters of the Splurge admit it cannot be continued past Spring08

Why? Because the units we keep rotating in aren't leaving anymore. Already there are reports about the "stretched thin" Armed forces collapsing from exhaustion.

What Bushler has done is what's known as "committing all your reserves". You would commit all your reserves because either you think the enemy's final defeat is at hand and only a little larger push is needed, OR your own defeat is at hand and there's no point in holding anything back anymore. Militarily, the first case is not proposed. Which leaves the second case - but that's not applicable either, militarily, since our defeat in the field is not a serious prospect either. However, politically, the second case (imminent defeat) is what Bushler is facing. His term will end at the end of next year, and what he needs to claim victory is for the US military to be still dug into Iraq on Jan. 20, 2009 when he leaves. That way all the problems of how to get out and recover from his blundering will be left to his successor. He just has to stave off the chorus calling for withdrawal from Iraq until Fall 2008. When the shit hits the fan afterwards, Bushler and his supporters in the media and his party will claim it's all the libruls fault. "Doan ask me what happened. We wuz winnin' when I left" said Ex President Bush. But there's still the problem of how you get to Fall 08 with a breaking Army. If you think this summer's stories of exhaustion and collapse coming from Iraq are bad, wait til next summer. Even Surge advocates say what we're doing cannot be sustained past next spring. Unless something dramatically positive happens in Iraq our Army will be in full Soviet style collapse. Stuff not working. Troops not marching. And not enough fresh meat coming into the hopper.

To carry on with the mission at that point, you will need a draft. That's why War-Tsar General Lout is speaking wistfully about it. Unlike Bushler, who I'm sure no longer gives a shit, General Lout is thinking about what happens after the Surge is spent, and after Nov. 2008, and how the mission in Iraq can possibly continue with only a bloody stump of an Army.

[Martin Eden]

6. You've got a pretty good point there

General Lout is probably looking at the situation from a practical, rather than a political angle. If the splurge cannot be maintained the military strategy would have to change unless there is a draft.

I see two possible strategies on the part of Bushler. Either he's planning to leave an insoluble mess and a bloody stump to the next president, or before the end of the term he will create a situation in which a draft is politically feasible -- like another major terrorist attack in the US or war with Iran.

[90-percent]

2. draft

seems like a draft for conducting WARS OF CHOICE would be reprehensible to virtually every citizen in the USA.

Exceptions - All federal level politicians and all principle executives of the military-industrial-congressional complex.

-85% jimmy

[Martin Eden]

7. Unfortunately ...

... EXCEPTIONS to the draft usually turn out the exact opposite of what you propose.