There's this - "Supporting The Troops" I think it's called. "``That is a really pathetic gesture,'' said John Tanner, D-Tenn. ``Active duty guard and reservists and their families are the only people in this country who have been asked to sacrifice anything, anything whatsoever.'" That's about right.
Similarly, there's the inevitable news that the woman who took a picture of flag draped coffins being sent home, has been fired. It's a powerful picture, in its unpretentious directness. It is honest and moving and we are better off as a ocuntry for seeing it. We should not engage on adventures without facing what those adventures are - we are fighting a war - wars have casualties - if we can't face the acasualties, we should not fight the wars... And that ties to the story above - the only people being asked to make sacrifices are the soldiers.
Let's add this story then: the Draft? Chuck Hagel, Republican senator from Nebraska, says we may need it:
"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."
Well - apparently at least one Republican is willing to talk about the cost. This is a tough question - nobody much wants a draft - but again - this kind of military adventure requires people - if you are going to invade ohter countries and occupy them for years until you can establish some kind of stable, acceptable government there - you have to have the manpower to do it, and the only way you can have the manpower is to reinstitute the draft.
It won't happen. Not before November, nor will there be any consideration of it, from the White house. Here's Richard Perle, representing the government line:
"It is essential that we not delay the handover of sovereignty set for the end of June, even if there is continuing violence by those who know they have no place in a decent, democratic Iraq," he said.
Perle also warned against entrusting the United Nations (news - web sites) with the post-occupation administration of Iraq, saying UN involvement should be kept at "an absolute minimum."
"A large UN contingent in Iraq ... would do more harm than good," Perle said.
Cut and run, but don't give it to the UN, don't sent more troops...
What planet is he from?
Meanwhile, you want to know who's going to do the fighting? Mercenaries? Yeah - probably. I mentioned that once before, and never got back to it - but I think one of the reasons there are so many "contractors" in Iraq is that the government doesn't have the military manpower, and is not willing to make the demands on the country that would be required to get the manpower - which would probably require some kind of compulsory service. That does not reflect well on our leaders...
I think I've had enough here. The links above were gleaned in various spots - most in multiple spots, but Tom Tomorrow has comments on a couple of them; Pandagon and Oliver Willis have comments on the draft (and much more); and Juan Cole has a nice takedown of Richard Perle.
Finally - Kerry the counterpuncher strikes again, huh? "The records, posted on the campaign's Web site, include effusive evaluations of Kerry's service and previously released citations for the Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts he earned in the Vietnam War."
No comments:
Post a Comment