I thought there would be a thread about this here already and I could read it and learn. But there isn’t. So. . .
Pentagon says it needs more troops for the anticipated increase in violence in Afghanistan and the Army Chief of staff says we’re fresh out.
I don’t even know what questions to ask. Surely there will be no draft in the near future. I can’t even see one in the far future-- Congress would never go for it. It’s political suicide.
I’m thinking we’ll hold on for the next 10 months and then start pulling out of Iraq slowly. Or, Bush will fire Casey and pretend everything is hunky-dory. But I’m far from an expert and I’d really like to hear the Dope Debaters take on this.
The draft isn’t THAT unreal of an idea. The political climate isn’t right for it now, but the political climate is never “right” for instituting the draft, all the way back to the Civil War, maybe earlier.
I would be surprised if the government coerced civilians into service, but it wouldn’t be the strangest political thing that’s happened in the past 10 years or so.
What I see happening instead is a steady increase in military spending, most of it going toward enticing more and more young civilians to enlist, especially if the Republicans can win in November. If the Dems win, I think we might see what you’re suggesting - a sort of slow, awkward withdrawl from Iraq as the political leaders stick their toes in the water to see if the public will crucify them for leaving.
We are still in Korea and it’s been half a century. I don’t think he meant we’d still be fighting at the current levels 100 years from now. However I can see us still having a presence in Iraq for years to come…like the Korean example. Of course if it all comes apart at the seams I can see us tucking tail and bolting in the next 12 months to so it will depend on what happens.
Since “stop the insanity” doesn’t even seem to be an option, I suspect we’ll just keep muddling on as we have muddled on for the past five years, throwing lives and dollars into the crapper. The military will keep adjusting in its usual way – offering higher and higher incentives, taking more and more people below its usual standard of fitness, and shifting people around. Nothing really will change.
It’s the most depressing thing I can think of at the moment.
In 10 months we’ll be about 3 weeks away from a new administration. In 100 years we will have gone through 15 or 20 administrations (assuming some last for 8 years). This is no longer about Bush.
But I will be very surprised if we have less than 50k troops in Iraq by the time of the '12 election.
Korea – and Germany and Japan – are bad examples. We’re there for a wholly different purpose than we are in Iraq. And by and large, Korea and Germany and Japan support our mission in their countries.
That’s what I get for trying to write a catchy thread title. The troops needed NOW are for Afghanistan and not Iraq although it does seem as if Iraq is draining the military at this particular moment.
And there will be other “moments”, I’m sure, where troops will be needed. A base does not require over 100,000 troops. When will this thing in Iraq become a just a base? How large will the AWOL problem become? How will shifting troops plug up holes when there are not enough troops to shift? How often can we re-deploy our men before there can be no more re-deployments?
How do you figure that? Certainly we were in Germany and Japan because we were part of the occupation force. They weren’t exactly thrilled for us to be there (though I’m sure the Germans preferred us to, say, the Soviets, at least in the West). The NORTH Koreans weren’t exactly thrilled with us being in Korea either. I’m uncertain why you think they are bad examples…because Iraq isn’t exactly like them? Seems to me it’s a pretty close parallel…we are there for strategic reasons.
As for the Iraqis wanting or not wanting us there…well, that depends on who you ask. And unless you are saying the Iraqi GOVERNMENT wants us to go then I don’t see your point. There was a pretty vocal percentage of Japanese, Germans and Koreans that ALSO didn’t want us there. Hell, there is a percentage of South Koreans TODAY that don’t want us there (and my guess is no one in the North does).
How about “most of the Iraqi population” ? For that matter, most of them support killing foreign soldiers, reasonably enough.
As for the Iraqi “government”, they are a propped up, nearly powerless bunch of American collaborators. And when we leave, they will have to flee or be killed by their own people, almost certainly. Naturally they don’t want us to leave.
How about ‘do you have a cite to back that claim up’?
I doubt most of them do, but again, do you have a cite or is this just your uninformed opinion?
Assuming I accept that, the same criteria could probably be used to point to the South Korean government…and probably the post-WWII Japanese and German governments as well.
And you base that on…?
But ‘most of the Iraqi population’ (including the Kurds presumably) want us to leave, ehe? It’s only our puppets in the government who want us to stay?
The troops in Germany and Japan were the first line of defense against the Soviets, just as the troops in Korea are the first line of defense against the North Koreans. That’s why those countries lhave historically liked us there – we lessened the danger of being speedily overrun, or even attacked in the first place. In Iraq, in contrast, what would we be defending the Iraqis against?
The distinction is lost on me. So what? A case can be made that one of the strategic reasons we invaded Iraq is so we’d have a forward base in a hot spot region that is strategically vital to the US. We NEED oil like a junky needs a fix. Arguably it’s as important to the continuation of our economy and very nation as Western Europe was to the US’s strategic goals in the late 40’s and 50’s. Korea was a back water…it’s not vital to US interests at all, save for it’s location close to Japan (an ally by that time). Iraq is MUCH more strategically important than Korea ever was to US foreign interests.
You are kidding, right? Were you alive in the 60’s? The 70’s? 80’s? There have been protests, riots and even blood shed in all of those countries to one degree or another due to US military forces stationed there. Have you forgotten the anger and even the hatred of our troops stationed in those countries?? The protests? The South Koreans used to make a game out of it with their college students rioting right on schedule every year!
An Islamic fundamentalist overthrow by the Shi’ia a la Iran? I would say the majority of Iraqi’s don’t want the happy situation their neighbors to the east have.
No, though I did misspell “have.” The opposition in Germany, Japan and Korea to American bases, to my recollection, has always been pretty much limited to the left – it’s never been a broad-based opposition, the way it would be in Iraq. And the governments have never been flat-out opposed. You really think an independent Iraqi government would tolerate a permanent American base there to serve whatever American strategic interests we could cook up? Particularly since we told them explicitly we weren’t going to do that. See, for example, this quote from Gen. Kimmett, at one time the deputy commander for planning and strategy in Iraq: “We already have handed over significant chunks of territory to the Iraqis. Those are not simply plans to do so; they are being executed right now. It is not only our plan but our policy that we do not intend to have any permanent bases in Iraq.” (Quoted from here.)
Because that’s what college students do, they get enraged, stage protests, scream, yell, shout, fling, immolate and generally run riot. And the other 99% of the population shrugs and goes on with their lives. Do you see protests at Berkeley and conclude that The American People hate the presence of whatever is the kids are protesting?
Here’s one. You can find others if you like easily enough. The fact that most want us out and most support killing us is well known ( not to mention common sense ), to those who are actually paying attention.
Because that’s what tends to happen to people who collaborate with conquerors.
Why not ? If it’s a choice between America-occupied Iraq and fundie-run Iran, anyone sane is going to take Iran, bad as it is.
So you have polled a large percentage of the Iraqi population to glean this information, then?
I have many, many experiences with the military and with vets that have done tours there, family members, friends, myself in the first go 'round in Kuwait…and everything that I have heard/seen is contrary to what you say (at least, in terms of the scale that you say it).