“I don’t see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft….It would ensure a more equitable representation of people making sacrifices….
As long as Americans are being shipped off to war then everyone should be vulnerable. “
[Rep Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Korean War veteran – awarded Purple Heart and Bronze Star for valor]
For years, it was plain for all to see that “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq would be mission impossible unless and until the U.S. significantly increased the number of troops deployed there. Unfortunately, groundhog days of violence have now cowered even war hawks like Henry Kissinger into thinking that the war in Iraq is “unwinnable” – no matter how many more U.S. troops join the fight.
However, it is also plain for all to see that Kissinger’s view does not reflect an assessment of the military’s (in)ability to win. Rather, it reflects the crude calculation of the prohibitive political costs of victory, which no one in Washington has the nerve to incur – just as Osama bin Laden predicted would be the case. Indeed, especially for politicians with presidential ambitions, the Republicans losing control of Congress was but a foreshadowing of the political shock and awe to come if American troops are still in Iraq in 2008.
But, for the record, here’s how the generals assess the situation in Iraq:
We have enough forces to complete his [President Bush’s] primary mission of training Iraqi forces but not enough to defeat the insurgency.
[Marine Maj. Gen. Rick Zilmer, the commander of troops in the region]
Let’s be honest with each other…there are not enough Marines, Iraqi army or police to cover all this ground. And I can’t tell you there will be more Marines coming.
[Marine Brig. Gen. Robert Neller, deputy commanding general of Iraq Multinational Force]
You’ve probably heard President George W. Bush, the Commander-In-Chief, say a thousand times that the generals in Iraq, not politicians in Washington, will determine the course of this war. Yet it is self-evident that fighting generals like Zilmer and Neller will not decide whether U.S. troops “stay the course” or “cut and run.” Instead, this military decision will be made by politicians like Kissinger and James “Iraq Study Group” Baker (and their military enablers like CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid who directs the course of this war from his armchair in Florida – as he explained on 60 Minutes last night).
Moreover, those now arguing that the U.S. should withdraw because the Iraqis seem hell-bent on waging a civil war fail to appreciate that it was the Americans who led the Iraqis down this primrose path to sectarian conflagration. And, that using the specter of civil war as a pretext to cut and run is an affront to former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s unassailable mandate (a.k.a. the Pottery Barn rule), which holds that “if you break it, you own it.”
The U.S. has broken Iraq. Now it owns Iraq. And the failure of U.S. troops (over the past 3 years) to restore (and maintain) law and order there is the proximate cause of the civil war politicians in Washington are citing as the just cause for them to withdraw.
Alas, whatever the uncertainties about the future course of America’s involvement in Iraq, it is absolutely certain that the Draft will never be reinstated. Because the one issue on which all politicians agree is that a Draft should never be allowed to put their loved ones at risk of being called to arms to fight in Iraq.
(For example, just last week, those joining the chorus in opposition to the Draft included Republican Senators John Warner and John McCain – who, symbiotically and ironically, has stood as alone in calling for more troops as Rangel has stood in calling for the Draft, as well as Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama – who is now leading the calls for the U.S. to cut and run.)
Of course, this is precisely why the enlightened Rangel wants the Draft to be reinstated. After all, he is reasonably convinced that if their loved ones were at risk of being shipped to Iraq, or any other battlefield, then politicians would not be so careless about putting any American soldier in harm’s way….
NOTE: To meet basic troop-level requirements, recruiters are lowering (physical and educational) standards to entice any Tom, Dick, and Harry (and Mary too) to sign up “to be all they can be in the Army.” And it is patently disingenuous (if not hypocritical) for politicians to be opposed to the Draft knowing full well that 40-year old mothers are being recruited to fight in Iraq.
Related Articles:
The (undeclared) war in Iraq is no WWII; and Bush is no FDR!
The Shotgun Convention of Sunni, Shia & Kurds to Frame an Iraqi Constitution…
Groundhog days in Iraq…and in President Bush’s head!
Military Draft
WeblogBahamas.com says
Talk of making people slaves again from one that should know better.
The military should be voluntary!
I thought it was the Republicans that were going to reinstate the draft – or was that Democratic mischief making?
ALH ipinions says
WB
I’m not sure how requiring all Americans to fight to defend the liberties and opportunities they enjoy makes slaves of them.
It was never a Republican idea to reinstate the Draft since – as a Party – they seem perfectly content to have the poor and dispossessed fight to preseve and protect their way of life.
WeblogBahamas.com says
ALH:
They are forced to serve – making them slaves to the state.
I know the Republicans never suggested it, – at least publicly, but the Democrats were saying that is what the Republicans were going to do.
As it turns out, it seems the Dems had the idea all along.
I think it is a bit of political rhetoric to suggest that only the “poor and dispossessed” are in the armed forces.
For many it is a way out of their circumstances of course, but I know several people from middle class families and more with college degrees etc that simply want to serve in that way.
I wouldn’t want to, but more power to them – rich or poor.
Anonymous says
I’m in favor of a draft too. Well, I will be when I can’t be drafted. I understand that your point is more for its rhetorical impact than its realistic nature, but the majority of the people who you would use to make this point (ie. the 20-30 yr. old demographic) didn’t vote for the president and didn’t ask for this war.
ALH ipinions says
Re eligibility for the draft: touché Glen!
Your other point is instructive in so many ways.
I could infer that had more twenty-something slackers bothered to vote, Bush would never have been elected president, we would not be in this mess and the issue of the draft would be truly moot.
But having failed to do so, Gen –X’ers cannot now whine about him not being their president and not asking for this war. (Frankly, it seems a cabal of neo-cons in DC are the only ones who did.)
Democracy’s a bitch like that!!!