It’s not the media that’s got me worried. I seldom take what I hear on TV at face value. The media tends to simplify things too much. I don’t rely on TV to get my news.
What’s got me worried are the State Department reports that state that a civil war in Iraq is very likely next year. Even if the United States installs a nice, secular democracy there, that doesn’t ensure peace. If Islamic fundamentalists or Sunni extremists try to take over the country, you can bet the United States will be involved. I’m figuring that’s going to happen, and I’m also figuring that when it does, Europe or Pakistan or India aren’t going to want to touch this situation with a ten-meter pole. The United States won’t have any real international support for this one (unless we can get Fiji or Uzbekistan to chip in their military budges again,) so we’ll have to go it alone. I don’t see the all-volunteer army being able to handle this.
I’m also uneasy about developments in neighboring Syria. A couple of weeks ago, American troops were shelling across the border, and earlier this week, we closed our embassy in Damascus. Maybe it’s nothing, maybe it’s not, but I’m fearing for the worst.
A draft next year would be political suicide for Bush, sure, but if things really heat up like I think they will, we’re not going to be able to handle it without one.
Not sure why people are talking about how many people died. That’s not why you have a draft. You have a draft if you don’t get enough volunteers or people don’t re-up. Once soldiers start spending 3, 4, 5 years in that shithole they won’t be re-inlisting and new soldiers will be hard to recruit.
Keep in mind that the bulk of State Department bureaucracy is, was, and will be opposed to the admin’s foreign policy.
Course not; as I said, we may yet lose.
Okay, yes … but how exactly? They are not going to assemble large standing armies; as I mentioned, the US will still provide air power.
It is far more likely to come through small-scale urban guerilla operations. These will need to be put down by 1) Iraqi troops, for a hundred reasons and 2) highly-trained US volunteer troops. 18-year-olds dragged away from their Playstations and handed rifles will likely have unacceptable casualty levels. It would be politcal suicide for the GOP.
We’d pull out and blame the Allawi governement. Not that I think that’s what’s best for the country, but I think it’s what would happen.
Airstrikes, yes. Ground invasion, no.
Again, we declare victory and leave.
Lose a war: bad for politicians, worse for nation.
Thousands of draftees die: bad for nation, worse for politicians.
Politicans act in self-interest. There will not be a draft.
Bush doesn’t need to worry about political suicide. Congress does. That’s what will prevent the draft, even if the Administration wants it (which I don’t think they do).
What, they can’t freely elect an Islamic fundamentalist?
You know, on reflection, this statement is pretty much what we Democrats said about the vote on 11/2, and you see how well that worked out for us. Do you think you have any more luck going against the will of the Iraqi people than the Democrats did in America?
That poll was only taken among residents of Baghdad. By comparison, had you taken a presidential poll in America’s largest city, you would find that John Kerry was preferred above all others, but if would be erroneous to conclude that that was the will of the whole country. The Shiites control 60% of the vote, which is why the US government opposes direct elections in favor of regional caucuses. Either way the democratic process in Iraq is screwed; we get either an Islamic fundamentalist, or rejection of the elections and possible civil war. A Hobson’s choice at best.
That poll may have been in Baghdad, but there have already been numerous elections in Iraq in cities and towns, and the Islamic fundamentalists keep losing them.
You’re right, that skews it. Baghdad and the other Sunni areas are the ones most accepting of US ideas; certainly the Kurds are likely to be very down on the idea of liberal democracy.