Properly Framed, A vote For the Surge Should Be A Vote For Draft....

[Blackhatjack]

Either we send in overwhelming numbers to occupy every square mile or we need to deploy out of Iraq. One or the other.

So if Congressmen vote to surge, they really need to be voting to reinstitute the Draft, and in large numbers. Otherwise, you are just voting to send more American troops into the meatgrinder that Iraq is today.

BTW there are less than 9000 troops available to 'surge' so a Draft is not a choice, but a necessity.

[tabasco]

1. True that. Many have themselves convinced it's an impossibility.

Endless ground war in Asia WILL require a draft sooner than later.

The units we have rotating constantly are at the breaking point.

[patrice]

2. Surge + 9/11 Baghdad = Draft

And a 9/11 in Baghdad would have to be a tactical nuke, because not much else would be noticed in the daily meat grinder.

[Blackhatjack]

3. It is as obvious as the nose on your face that extending our stay in Iraq will result in a Draft

It is not a matter of choice, or political persuasion, it is simply logistics.

You cannot fight unlimited wars with a limited number of soldiers that you have on a re-deployment treadmill. Equipment and fighting men have a useful life, and when expended past that date they become less and less useful.

And this fact is recognized by anyone intending to go up against the US.