He seems to feel that it’s the only way to achieve victory.
Does he have a point?
Good for Ben! And he is right.
Worked in Vietnam.
We wouldn’t “need” a draft if we weren’t in a needless, stupid war to begin with. I don’t really feel like being shot at because a government I didn’t vote for decided to get us into a war that we don’t need to be in.
I’m not a fan of sending people off to war to make a point about “the children of investment bankers.” This piece that Stein has written reads like pure hyperbole and propaganda. No, I don’t think he has a point.
The essential point here is that even if the good outcomes that the GOP base still insists are possible in Iraq are indeed possible, they can’t be achieved on the shoulders of the relative handful of Americans who were either in the military when we invaded Iraq, or have been convinced to enlist since then.
Accordingly, proponents of the war need to be proponents of a major recruitment campaign (aimed at war proponents in the appropriate age range), which hasn’t happened, and should that fail, they should be arguing for a draft.
And they should be doing that because if the supporters of the war won’t enlist in sufficient numbers to ease the burden on our present troops, and there isn’t adequate political support to institute a draft, then we can’t achieve our war aims in Iraq, and should withdraw from the conflict.
I have long said that either this war is so important that we must enlist every able bodied American in the fight, or it is not important enough to risk the lives and sanity of the few.
reminds any that may not know or remember that Ben was a speech writer for Nixon…
FML
If we had a draft, the war would be over within a month because the public, on either side, wouldn’t stand for it. Our Iraqui allies better be ready to take control or flee, because we wouldn’t stay very much longer to prop them up.
I like Ben generally, but if he actually thinks this is a good idea… :dubious:
Didn’t he make this sort of statement quite some time ago?
Given that first sentence is
He’s completely out of contact with the real world. Which united enemy are we facing?
Not really, because everyone who REALLY “matters”, is probably too old or can get their children into a nice safe position where they won’t be put into much danger (see George W Bush.) So basically, a lot more poor people will be unwillingly sent to a war which they don’t want to fight in. Hopefully that would make the masses call for change (or call for more immediate change,) but it’s not exactly the point that he was making.
Even if we did send huge numbers into Iraq, the insurgents would simply go into hiding and come back when we left, unless we’re talking about a multiyear occupation, which I don’t think anyone wants.
exactly
Right. With nuclear weapons mounted on ICBMs, ready to launch and capable of hitting the USA, with a leader who is crazy enough to use them and a population that is totally under his insane mindfuck control.
Oh, wait…that’s North Korea. Never mind.
The bad guys in black hats, of course. You know, the ones who oppose us only because we stand for Truth, Justice, and the American Way.
Yeah, we don’t face a united enemy at all. Ben Stein’s an idiot.
What we face is a decentralized network of factions with different goals who are united only in the purpose of removing American might from their region. These networks help each other tactically but have very little common cause in terms of their regionally specific politics.
A larger force with inferior training would actually empower the enemy rather than hurt it. Saddam Hussein retooled his military after Gulf War I to fight an insurgency. The point was to win the war after the occupation, not before it. In Iraq we have elite Sunni troops trained for systems disruption. The larger the military force the easier it is to disrupt the systems that support it. They’ve been attacking contractors and the like in order to remove vital services to the military men and women.
If we really wanted to fight this war and win, we’d want to whittle down our military, make a lean strike force that can be mobilized anywhere in the world within 12 hours, build up a core of arabic speakers who can monitor communications and improve our information networks. This can be facillitated far better by not having a large military presence on the ground.
I have a friend who is for the draft. His argument is that without the draft the majority of the American people can remain detached from the war in a way that they couldn’t if their brothers, sisters, cousins etc… were being drafted.
I first heard of Ben Stein when he did some voice work on Animaniacs. Later, there was Win Ben Stein’s Money. It was only in the last couple of years that I learned that he had been involved with politics.
In any case, how could we draft enough men, get them through training, put them on the ground with the required support and logistics, and do it within a reasonable timeframe?
I think he realizes that. I take his point to be that the sons of privelege should be shouldering the burden and not just gleefully basking in a 13,000 plus dow. He is saying, if the sons of the priveleged had to go, they would find a way to end the war quickly.
wha?
The idea of ‘union’ implies some sort of central purpose that does not exist. The enemy is not united, they are factions engaging in a similar commercial enterprise, working with those whose purposes align with theirs in the moment. They are blowing up each other more often than they are blowing us up.
Yeah, I’m afraid Stein’s not (if he seriously means his suggestion as a way of winning, rather than shaming the Administration into withdrawing) being realistic as to how insurgencies are suppressed by large regular military forces (answer: they rarely are).
This guy claims that there’s only one example in history of an occupying army conclusively defeating irregular insurgents determined to resist: