[QUOTE=DanBlather]
I wonder what would happen if the Governors of states like Oregon, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, etc. would just refuse to allow their National Guards to be deployed. It would set up a great constitutional crisis.
[/QUOTE]
Romney never would have done it, he’s too busy running hard right for president. But now that Deval Patrick is governor, it’s not unthinkable.
Once we get past the fact that we’re in this war at all, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died or will die on account of it, not to mention 3000 Americans and counting, this is probably the thing that makes me most upset: that the burden of this war isn’t spread out in the least, but rather, it keeps on falling on the same few hundred thousand people, over and over again.
Word has been leaked that one of the themes of Bush’s speech is going to be “sacrifice.” That’s absurd. Neither Bush nor I will be called on to sacrifice on account of this war. But those on active duty and in the Reserves and National Guard will. They, and only they, will be called on to sacrifice.
What a totally fucked-up system.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
No one could have foreseen how much this administration would fuck things up.
[/QUOTE]
All too true. (Good use of the Administration’s ‘no one could have foreseen’ meme, btw.)
I’d agree with Doors that there is an implied contract for the Reserves. (Hell, for the active-duty Army, too.) It is this: we use the Reserves for a surge in troop requirements, but if we’re going to need to use them over and over again, it’s time to start drafting people. Or wind down the war.
I was talking with Bluesman and Lucretia over Christmas. While we all agreed that, for the most part, a volunteer army is much more effective than a conscript army, they were against a draft under pretty much any circumstances. I asked them, “suppose you need far more troops than you have, what then?” Lucretia’s reply was, “You make do with the troops you have.”
I think that’s crazy. There comes a point when either you draft people, or admit that you’ve bitten off more war than you can chew. I think we reached that point years ago, but Bush just ignored it, utilizing one trick after another to keep from having to admit that we didn’t really have enough troops to fight this war.
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
I wonder what would happen if the Governors of states like Oregon, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, etc. would just refuse to allow their National Guards to be deployed. It would set up a great constitutional crisis.
[/QUOTE]
Tricky. Don’t National Guardsman taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution (in addition to their home states specifically). The Prez is the Commander in Chief of (in addition to the Army and Navy) “the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”. The governors might argue that “actual service” isn’t being, well, served, in Iraq, but on its face, a reservist has the President as highest authority. If Bush says to go and you don’t, even claiming your governor is on your side won’t protect you from the charge of mutiny. Of course the governor might then be charged with sedition…
In theory, at least.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
I was talking with Bluesman and Lucretia over Christmas. While we all agreed that, for the most part, a volunteer army is much more effective than a conscript army, they were against a draft under pretty much any circumstances. I asked them, “suppose you need far more troops than you have, what then?” Lucretia’s reply was, “You make do with the troops you have.”
I think that’s crazy. There comes a point when either you draft people, or admit that you’ve bitten off more war than you can chew. I think we reached that point years ago, but Bush just ignored it, utilizing one trick after another to keep from having to admit that we didn’t really have enough troops to fight this war.
[/QUOTE]
Did he mention what happened to those WMDs?
-Joe
If there aren’t enough troops to fight this piddly little war, then isn’t that telling the world that the US is very weak indeed? All that’s needed to overwhelm the US forces is gumption and resolve?
[QUOTE=Liberal]
All that’s needed to overwhelm the US forces is gumption and resolve?
[/QUOTE]
When a war is planned and executed this poorly…
I’ve never understood the use of soldiers in “peace keeping”. Soldiers aren’t peace keepers; they’re warriors. What they do best is destroy. Maybe the armed forces needs a new service comprised of people who specialize in keeping order, overseeing projects, unclogging traffic, supressing riots, and what have you.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I’ve never understood the use of soldiers in “peace keeping”. Soldiers aren’t peace keepers; they’re warriors. What they do best is destroy. Maybe the armed forces needs a new service comprised of people who specialize in keeping order, overseeing projects, unclogging traffic, supressing riots, and what have you.
[/QUOTE]
:dubious:
Isn’t that what they usually use the National Guard for?
[QUOTE=Liberal]
If there aren’t enough troops to fight this piddly little war, then isn’t that telling the world that the US is very weak indeed? All that’s needed to overwhelm the US forces is gumption and resolve?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I think the lesson was well-established long before this, and not just where the Americans are concerned. It’s easier to wage a defensive war using guerrilla tactics if the invader isn’t willing to use overwhelming force. France in theory could have deployed nukes in Algeria and the U.S. in theory could have done so in Vietnam, but once it was clear they wouldn’t do so, a guerrilla army can easily stage small attacks and melt back into the civilian population which, in violation of long-standing historical precedent, the invader wasn’t willing to put to the sword.
It was relatively easy in Alexander’s time. If the insurgents tried this stuff against him, his biggest problem would be a shortage of spikes to put heads on.
I guess so. But have they improved since May 4, 1970?
[QUOTE=Ethilrist]
:dubious:
Isn’t that what they usually use the National Guard for?
[/QUOTE]
Not to mention that military police are well-trained in traffic control, and that the Army Corps of Engineers might be said to have some degree of experience in overseeing projects.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
If there aren’t enough troops to fight this piddly little war, then isn’t that telling the world that the US is very weak indeed? All that’s needed to overwhelm the US forces is gumption and resolve?
[/QUOTE]
That, and/or that the purpose for the war is very weak. If our security, nay our very lives, or even Matt Lauer’s family, is on the line, we should have a massive pool of volunteers to draw from. Material and supplies should be the limiting factor, not people.
Perhaps our involvement in wars, and most especially wars of choice started by us, should be done only when the stakes approach the level at which a draft would be expected without question and logical.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
I was talking with Bluesman and Lucretia over Christmas.
[/QUOTE]
I’d say Bluesman’s credibility around these boards is about minus 10 billion and falling.
[QUOTE=Qadgop the Mercotan]
I’d say Bluesman’s credibility around these boards is about minus 10 billion and falling.
[/QUOTE]
So, not placing a lot of faith in his “keep throwing bodies on the fire till we run out” plan, then?
-Joe
Drown the fire in kerosene.
What about all the 800,000 new enlistees I was reading about today in the news?
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Word has been leaked that one of the themes of Bush’s speech is going to be “sacrifice.” That’s absurd. Neither Bush nor I will be called on to sacrifice on account of this war. But those on active duty and in the Reserves and National Guard will. They, and only they, will be called on to sacrifice.
[/QUOTE]
I thought - at least in 00 - that the military strongly supported Bush over Gore. I thought pro-Bush military absentee ballots were supposed to be a significant factor in the Florida fisasco. But I readily admit that I might be misremembering.
[QUOTE=Qadgop the Mercotan]
I’d say Bluesman’s credibility around these boards is about minus 10 billion and falling.
[/QUOTE]
I know. I suppose I should have known better than to even bring his name up, even for illustrative purposes.
I feel for you, Airman Doors, I really do.
It’s an ugly, terrible situation.
I wish I could believe in some sort of ultimate system of justice that would ensure the people who created this get exactly what they deserve.
(But then I remember that would mean I’d get what I deserved, too, and then I realize that might be really bad; I don’t need justice, I need grace. Maybe it’s all for the best that I get neither…)
For you, Airman Doors, here’s wishing/hoping for grace (in the noble, old-fashioned sense.)
[QUOTE=Merijeek]
Did he mention what happened to those WMDs?
-Joe
[/QUOTE]
They checked between the sofa cushions while I was there. No luck.