Salon Article -There are no more troops to send to Iraq.... LINK

[Blackhatjack]

http://www.slate.com/id/2149684/fr/rss/

....so how far of a mental jump is it to find the solution to this problem? You cannot increase the number of troops available in the short term without instituting a DRAFT, right?

If we were honest with the American people, the biggest issue we are voting on in November is whether to reinstitute a draft of our young men and women for immediate service in Iraq.

Bush has already shown he will not change course, he will not replace Rumsfeld, he will not listen to Pentagon brass who are telling him we are in the middle of a civil war/sectarian violence, and he will likely send more not less troops to Iraq. Only a change in majority control of Congress can bring about a counterweight to such incompetence.

Of course, if Bush launches an attack on Iran --well in that case, we all may be in line for some type of military service, just like the model used by Israel. Don't think so? Name the last time we accepted military enlistees at age 42 like we do now? And called up individual ready reserves as old as 50 and female like we do now?

Just remember every time the Bush/Cheney WH and Rumsfeld deny the possibility of a military draft, that means they have considered it --and given their track record, would you believe them when they say no draft?

Staying the course = Instituting a Draft.

There are so many issues to consider when voting in November, but this may be the one that is just below the radar of the American people.

[saltpoint]

1. Bill Kristol will probably pout for days on end. There are no more

soldiers to send to the Middle East, Bill. You either pressure your oil puppet president to institute a military draft or you admit that your PNAC pals were monstrously wrong to start with.

Don Rumsfeld assured you there were enough troops. You might want to give him a call and ask how the war effort's going.

And by the way, the Republican who won the Rhode Island primary yesterday voted to oppose the Iraq assault. Whatcha gonna do about that one, Bill?

[Blackhatjack]

2. PNAC/Rumsfeld put their trust in technology and tech training over boots..

...on the ground in determining that a smaller military force could get the job done.

Well this was proven false over and over again in previous conflicts. For example, you can spend millions to construct high tech tanks, and for a few thousand dollars the enemy can knock one out with a shoulder mounted anti-tank weapon. Same with our present military force.

Conditions have degraded our high tech equipment, which is breaking down way too quickly to be replaced. We do not have enough boots on the ground to control violence in that areas we are deployed in.

PNAC shills can call for an infusion of troops, but that is impotent in the face of the reality that there are no other troops available to deploy. And if this path is chosen, a draft will be required and the idea of the high tech trained soldier as the basis of our military power will go by the wayside.

[saltpoint]

3. Yes -- an era ushered in by an arrogant Don Rumsfeld and his

PNAC buddies.

At the expense of our nation and our relationships with other nations.

The word "disaster" suggests itself.

[Blackhatjack]

4. PNAC will not deploy from Iraq b/c they have their eyes on Iran next

The working plans for an attack on Iran depend on us having a force presence in Iraq.

We are doing nothing in Iraq to quell sectarian violence, and the chances of a democratic government succeeding there is below dismal. However, if we intend to strike Iran, the PNAC shills believe that our forces as presently deployed will prevent a massive incursion of Iranian fighters over the border into Iraq. The danger is that we may suffer a huge loss of military lives when the Iranians AND THE SHIITE IRAQIS join together in an attack on our unsupported troops.

[saltpoint]

5. The PNAC folks have also grievously miscalculated public support

for this "war."

Bush had unfettered range after 9/11 to re-shape U.S. foreign policy however he wished and he made the first of many mistakes in judgment by assuming he could deliver on the PNAC agenda.

That has not happened and isn't likely to happen.

The administration has placed itself in an unsustainable limbo. It has mucked up the operaton and therefore public support for it has evaporated, so it cannot escalate either on strategic or logistical grounds. And on the other hand, it can't sell a war unless the public wants to buy one.

And by a nearly 2/3rds majority, the public is not on board.

[Blackhatjack]

6. What is Scary is Bush Does Not Care He Has No Public Support

... He is planning to continue using his "unitary executive theory" to interpret the Constitutiion to give him power to do anything he pleases whether the public supports him or not. Combine that with Executive Orders and his idea of "inherent" powers as Commander in Chief....

Only a vigilant Congress, and Judicial support can put a brake on his dangerous conduct, and even then it will be difficult.

Sounds cynical, but in the end it may come down to the Pentagon Brass refusing to carry out direct orders of a Commander in Chief, who is detached from reality and heading us into yet another disaster.

[saltpoint]

7. I hear you. And we may have seen the first big spasm of that

resistance yesterday.

I doubt if John Warner would have lent his name to such a publicized objection to Bush's policy unless he had heard from very deep within the military that Bush's policy was dangerous.

Warner's generally a company man. His defiance of the president yesterday is a loud sounding.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

11. Captain Queeg all over again..Instead of marbles...

W grinds his jaw.

Both are mentally ill.

[SpiralHawk]

8. That's what happens when you have a known DESERTER pretending to be the

Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. Why do the republicons LOVE LOVE LOVE this AWOL incompetent? cluck, cluck cluck. That's all I -- or Rush "Anal Cyst" LImbaugh -- have to say on the matter.

[City Lights]

9. Great article, but FYI, it's from Slate. eom

[Blackhatjack]

10. thanks for catching that .... fixed n/t

[Blackhatjack]

12. Well I tried to edit OP to show it was from SLATE, but to no avail

....says edit period has expired. Oh well....