When Will They be Pulling the Contractors Off the Roofs of the Green Zone?

I know you're in a rush, but these are the kind of things you need cites for. Claiming 80% of Iraqis want Americans out and that the Green Zone is penetrated is explosive stuff, but needs to be backed up.

That, and I'm extremly intrested to see if there's a credible source for those statements .

 

It says tours are extended from 12 months to 15 months. I would have a hard time characterizing that as an 'indefinite extension'.

 

Likewise Glynch says the the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want us 'out asap' and then cites and article that says they are divided over whether the withdraw should happen in 6 months or 2 years. Then again I guess I could say I want the troops out 'asap.' Which means 'as soon as possible,' not immediately.

Also, he fails to show any link between increasing prosecutions for desertion and a flagging recruiting rate (which would be hard since the military is still hitting their recruiting numbers). Although the article saying 'The Army prosecuted desertion far less often in the late 1990s, when desertions were more frequent, than it does now, when there are comparatively fewer' really makes his point seem silly.

 

I'm not sure if you read the article or not but from what I recall reading it this week - the reason why the army is hitting its recrutitng numbers is because they have lowered recrutiting standards as far as criminal record, intelligence, etc. Not too surprisingly, the desertion rate among these recruits who otherwise wouldn't have qualified is much higher.

The army is broken. Yet another reason why the IRaq war was a mistake.

 

I agree. I don’t think it is in anybody’s best interest to exaggerate the nature of things. We are doing a good enough job of screwing up Iraq by ourselves that we can present the facts and let them speak for themselves.

For instance, I’m sure that there are a few Iraqis who are still happy that we invaded. Even, perhaps, one or two who haven’t personally benefited from the invasion? If you say that 100% of Iraqis who haven’t become rich or benefited from the invasion are against the invasion, then when ‘W’ produces one who says otherwise (and even really means it), it reduces your credibility to point out the falsehoods of his carefully constructed tableau about what is going on.

Note:

I just read Hayes' post and that is exactly what he has done. Once he can sow doubt about your facts, he can steer the arguement away from a legitimate point of what a total mess we have made of Iraq.

I know for a fact that there are some soldiers who still believe. I also know for a fact that 54% West Point graduates from the year 2000 haven't reinlisted after their 5 years stint, nor have 48% from the class of 2001. (Compared to 10%-30% for individuals in the classes from 1990-1999) This story has been making the rounds of several news outlets and I assume that this was the seed of your statement.

If your post had said 'The was in Iraq has caused the US Army to become screwed up and worn out. In latest news, tours are being extended three months and officers are refusing to reinlist and they say the extended duration of the tours is one of the major reasons' your post would have made a solid point that can't be denied.

 

Or perhaps dicovering this is an unintended benefit of the Iraq war. It has exposed some problems with our military that can now be addressed. If we cannot wage a war in Iraq, how could the military function in a larger conflict against more powerful/larger countries like China? How about a war on two fronts? The military needs to be fundamentally reworked, and compulsory service would probably be a compnent of that.

 

Look at American conscripts in Vietnam and Soviet conscripts in Afghanistan. They are totally unmotivated, much more likely to commit violent crimes, and about 10% of American conscripts in Vietnam became regular users of heroin.

Conscripted sailors on the Battleship Potemkin overthrew their officers and fired the first shots of the Russian Revolution.

The lists of the faults of conscripted armies could fill up several volumes. Armies all over the world have been trying to do away with conscripts since the European Revolutions of 1848. If you think the answer is conscription, you need to go back and read your history books. In practice, they are as much a burden as an asset.

 

Look at compulsory military service in Israel and Switzerland. Conscripting a bunch of people to go fight a war after the war has started is not the best solution (though it can work, see WWI and WWII) but having every person go through military training and become a professional soldier for a portion of their lives gives you the same well trained (if not necessarily as motivated) soldiers that the volunteer armed forces has, in greater numbers, and if a conflict on a global scale breaks out you have a huge pool of pre-trained soldiers to draw from in the even that a draft becomes necessary.

 

Look at the size of the populations of Israel and Switzerland, SM, and consider the differences between their cultures and ours. I really don't think one could make a valid comparison. Needless to say, I agree with Ottomaton. I think a draft would be a disaster in the United States, short of a national crisis far beyond what we have been faced with, and what George W. Bush has created.



D&D. Close the Draft.

 

Sorry for being a bit off topic.

How come the democrats don't write a bill that forbids tour extensions for this war? I think this will be more politically viable than the current bill. It will have the support from the military. Effectively it will also slowly reduce troop level unless the admin goes for a draft.

 

I think something very similar is included in the funding bill, where they talk about soldiers requiring readiness and training minimum milestones in order to be deployed. I may be wrong, but while I don't think it blocks extensions, but I think it means that when time overseas is extended, an equivalent extension in the amount of time spent training is required, which kind of defeats the idea of extending tours to fill gaps in available personnel.

If the actual content of our posts is irrelevant, we already know that you and Deckard are against the war, and Hayes and TJ and basso are for it and so we might as well just close down the D&D, because what people actually say in their posts doesn’t matter.

From my perspective, if he can find actual fault with the details of your post, he negates your post. If his objects to your post and his complaints are moronic, then your words gain credence; a BBS equivalent of 'peer review'.

 

But that will cause bigger political damage to him if he vetoes.

It seems to me this is a better way to play this political game.

 

See, that's the thing that people keep stumbling over. There's no more political damage for Bush... the deadender 30% will support him no matter what.

So, how do you deal with a rogue presidency who is not affected by the normal things presidents are usually affected by? There's no incentive at all for Bush to do something or not do something based on the political damage calculus because he's as damaged as he's going to get.

This is a crisis... none of the constraints the Founding Fathers expected to be in play are in play here...read the Federalist Papers and you see that they think a number of things beyond the formal checks and balances built in to the Constitution will affect the behavior of the President.

The biggest mistake Dems and Americans who are against this war and recognize the folly of this administration can make is thinking the political rules are still the same. They are different and I don't think anyone's figured it out, except perhaps the guys in the WH bunker.

We are in unchartered waters here folks, and it isn't going to get any prettier between now and 2008.

 

In that case, one really couldn't compare any country with any other country right? What country is similar enough in population and culture to the United States that you would feel comfortable drawing comparisons between them, for any random subject? If you don't like those examples, how about Germany, where they also have compulsory military service.

It would be far different from a Vietnam style draft. I am not talking about rounding up people, giving them a brief training course, and shipping them off to Iraq, I am talking about taking every person that turns 18, putting them through all of the training that our regular soldiers get, and having them serve in the military for some period (probably 18-24 months). The model is the IDF or the Swiss army, not the US Army in Vietnam.