Kerostasis

Um...you're gonna have to explain to me how college kids decisions on enlistment show that politicians don't think the war is about defending our country, cause I'm just not seeing the connection.

Also, did it occur to you that politicians might disagree on the importance of the war? Some think it is definately about defending our country, and others...well...others obviously don't. Currently the majority party in congress wouldn't let you even suggest increasing the size of the standing military, and they certainly wouldn't allocate the money to do it.

__________________

Steeler

Several of the more hawkish Democrats have suggested expanding the army, particularly Clinton and the now terminally crazy Lieberman.

But that's not going to do much, since they're not making their recruiting goals consistently right now. And they keep revising the numbers downwards to save face.

__________________

Kerostasis

Lieberman I can believe, but Clinton said that? Really? That I'd like to see.

__________________

AMosely

I agree with your summary and conclusion. This is a nebulous question to ask, as it has too many vagarities. Anyone who pays taxes in the U.S. right now is financially supporting the near half-trillion dollar war on terror whether they like it or not. Every person who re-elected George W. Bush to the presidency cast a solid vote to continue agressive military action and the war in Iraq. Yet despite all of this, the country is failing to reach a consensus on how to resolve the conflicts started in Iraq, and appears to be on the verge of loosing all progress in Afghanistan and in the fight against Bin Laden's Al Qaeda. A nation so divided is simply incapable of true support of anything.

El_Gringo_Grande

The "They" referred to the kids in the video (and people in general), not the government.

Let me re-write this paragraph to be more clear.

"Why didn't those in power increase the standing army numbers?

Because it might upset somebody?

Because they believe Americans don't want to defend their own country?

Bull crap. I believe just about every American would step up to defend their country if they knew a risk was actually present. Those kids, both the republicans and that hippie film maker would stand up and defend their country if called upon. But, well, you know. This war isn't really about defending our country, it is about politics and parties.

The kids in the video pretty much show this."

And I know of very few people in any party that suggested increasing the numbers or instituting a draft before the war began. This was a purely political move. Currently democrats are against increasing the number of troops in Iraq. How many republicans have suggested increasing troops. That 25k "surge" was a joke. Shinseki told everybody before this even began that several hundred thousand troops would be needed. This was before the Iraq fell into chaos. How many more would be needed now? A lot more than 25k.

In the first gulf war we had how many troops total? Wasn't it around 600K? U.S. alone I think had about 400K. This was only to re-take friendly territory, not to occupy a potentially hostile land. And in the beginning democrats didn't control anything. Plus the dems where so cowardly at that point that if the ruling party would have suggested a draft I doubt they would have put up much of a fight.

Nope, we didn't increase our numbers. Hardly anybody wanted to touch this idea.

Why? Why not increase our numbers if the Iraq war was so critical to securing our nation? Why not make sure we could win by employing massive numbers of troops as first Powel and then Shinseki, our military leaders, suggested?

__________________
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

El_Gringo_Grande

Could be true where you live, I don't know. Where I live (Okie Homy) that just doesn't happen. I have never experiance this, I don't know any body that has served who has experianced this.

Again, not saying it doesn't, just saying I have never seen it. And with all the blogs and video postings out there by those in the military I would say some in the military want to talk about what they experianced.

But even so, if everybody had to serve this would be even more rare.

__________________
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

Kerostasis

Ah, thanks for the clarification, I mis-understood you the first time. In that case my response is different: You present a false dilemma. Full-scale drafting to support a full invasion force is not the only alternative to avoiding troop increases because they would be unpopular. Our generals believed that the war could be won with the number of troops we had.

Granted, not all of them believed this, but some of did, led by the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Again, where you see conspiracy, I see simple disagreement. Some of the generals asked for many more troops, others thought what we had was enough. Rumsfeld had a vision of an ultra-modern army that used technological advantage to achieve results with far fewer soldiers than in the past. Unfortunately the time was not quite right for his ideas to work, so now he's gone and we're trying something else. That doesn't mean his plan was intended to fail, it just didn't quite work the way we hoped.

Even now, I do not believe we actually need a draft to secure Iraq. It took a little time, but the news reports are finally beginning to come out--the surge is working! Common, ordinary Iraqis are turning against the foreign invaders in their land and throwing them out! The "foreign invaders" being, in this case, Al-Qaeda. For all that Al-Qaeda seems to be much better than us at propaganda, they've spent most of their time in Iraq attacking Iraqi civilians, not US troops, and the Iraqis are fed up with it.

My point is that you cannot determine that someone does not care about winning the war based on them not advocating a draft. Volunteer armies are more effective than draftees anyway.

__________________

TheFatKidDeath

This generally sums up my feelings on the matter:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=15964

__________________
|TG-9th| TheFatKidDeath
"Born to Party, Forced to Work."
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55640 - Check me out on The Onion
http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...ssfully_avoids - I'm on the local news!

Steeler

Some of us see incompetence, careerism, and ideologically-motivated willful ignorance. But that's for another thread.

__________________

FatCobra

Somehow, that kind of stuff gets in every thread

Kerostasis

Hah! Nice observation.

__________________

AMosely

Please provide documented proof that there is a logistical (not just philosophical/ideological) connection between Al Qaeda in Iraq and Bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Without such evidence, any claims that Al Qaeda is "invading" Iraq are false. Al Qaeda in Iraq may very well be in disfavor within Iraq (a good thing), but this has very little bearing on Bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization.

My evidence for citing this is the July 17, 2006 national intelligence estimate that presented two facts that are mutually exclusive:

- The organization known as Al Qaeda in Iraq is the focus of recent offensive efforts in Iraq, and is losing ground.
- The organization known as Al Qaeda, led by Osama Bin Laden, is gaining operational strength in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Unless you have proof stating otherwise, these two groups are operationally independent of one another. Defeating one will not defeat the other.

Of relevance to this thread is that a good way to support the troops is to pay attention to facts and not blindly accept political propaganda (from anyone) as fact.

Kerostasis

In what way are those 2 facts mutually exclusive? Al-Qaeda is losing ground in Iraq, while gaining ground on other battle-fields. I see no contradiction there. Al-Qaeda leaders have publicly stated that they consider Iraq to be an extremely important battleground in the fight with the US, and I agree with them, so I'm not particularly unhappy with that progression of events.

Is it your assertion that "Bin-Laden's Al-Qaeda" does not care about Iraq, and has not devoted any resources to the conflict in Iraq? As that assertion is much more laughable than the opposite assumption that they speak the truth when claiming that they do care about Iraq, I will humbly request that you provide your proof first.

Further, while I happen to believe that there is a logistical connection between Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq and Al-Qaeda-not-in-Iraq, that connection is not actually a pre-requisite to calling Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq invaders. Whether or not they take orders from Bin-Laden, they are well known to not be native Iraqis. They are soldiers hailing from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and other places. The proof you ask for is irrelevant to this debate.

__________________

xTYBALTx

How can two facts be mutually exclusive?

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

AMosely

Then so is the debate.