But, on the plus side, its less time for those islamic sensitivity classes, less time for indoctrination into the 'Islam is a Religion of Peace' trope

Posted by: Jesus Worshipping Zionist at April 13, 2007 9:34 AM

Global War on Terror Shmerror.

Did anybody else hear Tom Tancredo on Hannity's radio program last night? He outright stated this is not a "Global War on Terror" it is a Globl War on Radical Islam and that "Terror" is a concept and once can't defeat a concept with a war.

Well, TT took the words right out of my mouth and I was glad to hear it. He'll be getting my support.

Posted by: GreatShaitan at April 13, 2007 10:01 AM

Part of the essential training of soldiers, those going to Iraq, and those going elsewhere or remaining at home, ought to be about Islam. Not fake Islam. Not the Islam of the Muslim apologists whom too many in the government think are just the people to teach about Islam. Remember that nice Egyptian man, who joined the U. S. Army and was put in charge of teaching about Islam and cultural sensitivity to soldiers, and then it then turned out he was involved in the first attack on the World Trade Center?

There should be lectures for this audience, this captive audience of hundreds of thousands, on how non-Muslims are regareded in Islam, how they were treated under the Shari'a, what the Muslim worldview is, and why this belief-system has such a hold on its adherents, why Believers are not allowed to get out but treated, if they dare to question or leave Islam, as traitors.

The Army has not done this. No doubt it fears suits by CAIR, and the reaction of those few Muslim troops (almost entirely black Muslims). But it has somehow to overcome its timidity, just as the C.I.A. and F.B.I. and local police forces need to stop being so protective -- fearful, rather -- of Muslim sensibilities, that they dare not speak truthfully about Islam, and can only hope that on their own, in the interstices of life, those whose duty it is to protect this country, will somehow, catch-as-catch-can, learn a little here and a little there, about Islam.

It is possible to construct courses that will set out the doctrines of Islam, relying heavily, almost exclusively, on what is to be found in the Qur'an, Hadith, Sira, and in the commentators who are themselves Muslim. It can and should be done.

Meanwhile, the army should make sure that the "training" includes enough so that when the soldiers are surprised, shocked in fact, at how those whom they have come to help, while eager to use the Americans for their own ends (getting the Americans to fight their internal wars, or soaking them for the very last dollar in aid they can get), are never going to regard those Americans as anything other than Infidels, that is with essential hostility that transcends, or survives, any temporary accommodation for the purposes of self-interest. Those Sunni tribes in Anbar Province who have apparently now turned on Al-Qaeda are not our "friends" and never could be. They have fallen out with Al Qaeda not because Al Qaeda attacks the Americans, but because Al Qaeda has been too zealous in its imposition of its own ways on them, and has killed local sheiks and their relatives.

One reason for the very high degree of demoralization among the most aware and thoughtful troops -- the ones who reflect upoin their experience -- is the gap between what they were told about Islam and about Iraq and their own experience of it.

This cannot go on.

At the various camps in which soldiers are trained, there is a chance to allow hundreds of men to learn something about Islam, something about the 1350-year history of Islam, something about the central duty of Jihad, and the vawrious instruments of Jihad that go far beyond mere "terrorism" or indeed, combat (qitaal). And finally, those officers and men should be required to learn something as well about the fissures -- ethnic, sectarian, and economic -- within the Camp of Islam.

So far, more than four years into this mistaken campaign, this Tarbaby Iraq, there is not the slightest sign that either the military or the civiliian leandership (including members of Congress) have begun to recognize that those who presume to lead us (to "take a leadership role"), those that is whose task is to both instruct and protect us, have a duty to themselves learn about Islam, its tenets, its attitudes, its atmospherics, and about the 1350-year history of Islamic conquest and subsequent subjugation of non-Muslim peoples. This is not a duty that can be foresworn. It must be fulfilled. Lives, countries, whole ways of life, depend on enough people in our ruling elites, in North America and in Western Europe, learning enough, and in time, and then acting sensibly and appropriately on that basis.

Posted by: Hugh at April 13, 2007 10:28 AM

CNN Lou Dobbs poll

Created: Thursday, April 12, 2007, at 17:33:26 EDT
Do you believe the U.S. military is stretched to the breaking point and that we should consider reintroduction of the draft?

Yes 66% 5552 votes

No 34% 2856 votes

Total: 8408 votes

Lou Dobbs Tonight

US Army Mobilization WWI from 0.2 to Victory 19mo

Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 13, 2007 10:41 AM

The entire Western world should consider the benefits of at least a one-year draft, not the 'one day' that is now required, for example, in France. Young non-Muslims in Western Europe would benefit from a year of training that might make them better able, practically and psychologically, to withstand the assault on their societies by those who think, and until now have had little reason to re-think, that Infidels can be pushed around.

Posted by: Hugh at April 13, 2007 10:48 AM

"Global War on Terror"

No timeout because such a war doesn't even exist.

'The Long War' is the much more appropriate title, since 'War with Islam' is just too honest for the meek and the mild, the oil-rich and the bought.

Posted by: Foehammer at April 13, 2007 11:44 AM

I get the distinct feeling that two SEAL teams with some air cover could get the job done if they were allowed to go to work.

Posted by: pez at April 13, 2007 11:47 AM

Mandatory 2 year draft (3 years for children of elected officials) of either military or peace corps service for all U.S. citizenS (with no exemptions other than physical disability)

2 years of military service for any illegal alien that wants to stay in the U.S. and recieve citizenship at the end of the service period.

Posted by: walterc at April 13, 2007 11:53 AM

@walterc: America's volunteer military tradition is not something to squander. People that buy into the myth that minorities comprise the majority of our armed services annoy me. I happen to be the son of an Air Force officer, close friends with a family that has 2 Air Force Colonels in its history, one currently serving. All white, all career.

If anyone takes a close look at the casualties coming out of Iraq/Afghanistan, world wars I, II, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, I think you will see quite clearly that there is no shortage of Caucasian dead, and from all walks of life.

The day a Draft is instated will be the day that we have allowed this mess to spin too far out of control. It will also be the day that we can finally stop finding flowery phrases to use with regards to the 'War with Islam' and call this conflict what we should. It will also be the day following an attack that has most likely killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.

I do not want to see such a day, but I probably will.

Posted by: Foehammer at April 13, 2007 12:03 PM

This whole thing wouldn't be a problem at all if the Forces we already have in there were allowed to fight WITHOUT THEIR HANDS TIED BEHIND THEIR BACKS!!

You can bring in 10 million soldiers for all I care. Unless they are allowed to fight as soldiers it doesn't matter how many you bring in there.

Why do you think our Special Forces do so well?

Answer: They fight without a rulebook. Away from the prying lying eyes of Palestinian National Radio.

That is what makes the Special Forces so special.
Among other things, like intense training and so on.

Take the media out of the battlefield and onto the prattlefield back home..

And let the soldiers take on the terrorists a bit less, shall we say.. assymetrically??!

This whole thing assymetrical warfare means only ONE thing in my book" One side fights by the rules while the other tortures and then kills those who happen to fall into its hands.

And then our media has the GALL to call assymetrical warfare "brilliant" and "genius".

We could, on the other hand, fight a totally different kind of "assymetrical" war.

One that involves heavy and punishing air bombardments a la World War 2.

Put that in yer Koolaid and drink it!

Posted by: Allahfanculo at April 13, 2007 12:06 PM

I have said this before but I will say it again.

Bringing back conscription might teach a new generation that we all have a part to play in defence.

Actually, if you are going to conscript young men why not tell young women that they also must do their duty for their country i.e. stop abortion?

Given Europe's catastrophic demographic problem it would be helpful if political/religious leaders were prepared to say this in public.

Posted by: Odyessus at April 13, 2007 12:29 PM

@Odyessus:

I have a better and even more radical suggestion:

We make learning American History mandatory for each session grades 8-12, with a heavy emphasis on the Revolution, War of 1812, the Civil War, World War I and II, the Spanish-American War, Korea and the Cold War.

When the kids learn that they have all their freedoms because of soldiers and not teachers, then they will have learned more than Basic Training could ever teach them.

Posted by: Foehammer at April 13, 2007 12:36 PM

I have yet to read any comments from anyone with ACTUAL COMBAT EXPERIENCE or ACTUALLY HAVING BEEN IN THE MIDDLE EAST THEATER in weighing in on this. So to shed a bit of existential experience of truth on this, read on.

Barry McCaffery is a paid for shill of the MSM who makes his living as an off the record lobbyist for foreign states whose policy is contrary to Ameircan policy first.
After disposing of the money general as someone who is not worth quoting, let us examine a few facts.

Time wouldn't know training if it's life depended upon it. There is no training as every soldier knows which prepares you for real combat, because the first time you hear the sound of being shot at you learn the difference between drill and an enemy intent on killing you.
I will not reveal what it sounds like to be shot at for real, because that is our elite little club which always "tells" who knows what combat is and those blow hards who chatter on like they know what it is.

Basic training prepares every soldier to REACT in combat exactly as they should. Live fire is utilized and this additional training is nothing that combat will not work the kinks out cheaper and more effectively with no more loss of life, because big secret is, "People die every year in training at quite large numbers, because soldiers do not pay attention in games."

If there was a shortage or a rush for soldiers, then the National Guard would not be spending months in training replacements due this early summer which is happening in deployment now. So all of that blows a big hole in Time propaganda and it really gets BOHICA every time I hear all these people who have never had that forever changing experience in your gut of real combat for political agendas or nattering on just to post something deeming US forces stretched or being placed into combat too soon.

For all the bovine scatology in the above propaganda in our troops being so under trained in actual combat this week only 1 soldier was KIA. That is not under trained. The others were IED KIA's which have everything to do with Hummers being inadequate and if blast plates would be fitted like the Armadillo has would end most of those KIA's.

Americans are the best natural combat people in the world. They are perfect for the job and with minimal training they settle into the vocation quite well with a little shooting over them.

The original Rangers did it against an enemy 100 times more formidable than the Muslims in the American Indian. The Minutemen did it against the elite British. Sherman's Army did it against the finest tactical force in the Confederates the world has ever known and Patton did it with green troops against the best army in the world in Germany.
Listen to the people who got shot over some and not the people who are making money off of it, because that is where the Truth is.

I would feel allot more comfortable and safe in Iraq than in East LA or among the mules in the border towns, because in experience and insight one naturally knows what is a situation in Iraq which is a live fire outing compared to the borderland where there is real active firepower marshalled.

The DS will just have too work a little harder when the bosses find out there is a more certain way to expedite troop training than the gump bases in California.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at April 13, 2007 12:42 PM

While I have the greatest respect for the ordinary soldiers, I do not have those same feelings for the military leaders and our civilian government officials. Their mindless adherence to multi-culturalism, shaping the way that the military is charged to do its mission, is killing our young soldiers every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. This insanity will continue with the next war, probably somewhere in Africa and, again, involving Muslims. I have children that are of military age...I do not want them sacrificed on the altar of multi-culturalism, in order that fragile Muslim feelings and Muslim self-image is not damaged. I have a relative attending West Point. Among his classmates are the sons of princes and wealthy Muslim men from the Middle East. These young Muslim men, who will never fight for the US or probably even support American military campaigns, are taking up slots that could be easily filled by patriotic young Americans. That fact alone tells me that top military and government officials don't have a clue or don't really care about young soldiers...that is why my vote is "NO" to a revival of the draft.

Posted by: maryrose at April 13, 2007 12:48 PM

Thank you, Lame Cherry, for your service and your observations. I don't pretend to be even remotely knowledgeable of the military. However, I do know of facts that disturb me, based things learned from JW and some relatives in the military. West Point has a special prayer room for its Muslim students and special dispensations from duties during 'the holy month of Ramadan.' I have no doubt that these special accommodations would continue on active duty, to the disadvantage of non-Muslim soldiers. The Marine base in Quantico, VA is or has already build a mosque for its Marine Muslims. And, the high regard for Muslim feelings and special needs go on and on....soldiers are not supposed to be seen eating or drinking during the day during Ramadan while in Muslim countries, despite the fact that that discipline should not be imposed upon them as non-Muslims. I cannot say that there are not some Muslims in the US armed forces that are loyal to America. Still, I vote no-confidence in multi-cultural generals/politicians and I vote no for a renewal of the draft.

Posted by: maryrose at April 13, 2007 1:09 PM

I could run this war better than our current generals.

I'm completely serious.

Posted by: Foehammer at April 13, 2007 1:11 PM

A draft is a terrible idea and is not necessary for the assymetric warfare that we face.

One guaranteed way to destroy the morale and effectiveness of the military: force people to serve in who want nothing to do with the military.

We are better off with a relatively small well-trained force of people dedicated to being in the army than we are with a much larger force which would inevitably include people who on average will not be as well trained because they didn't want to be there.

A single unskilled draftee can undue the benefit of 10 skilled service people to the detriment of everyone involved. One weak link in the chain can spell disaster.

In short, people who join the military generally understand that the focus of the army is not on their rights, or how the army can make the military experience more convenient for them.

The general draft age population is much different now than in WWII, Korea, or Vietnam.

Kids know they can retain lawyers to sue parents, schools, employers, etc. Draft these selfish monstrosities into the military, and Jihadists will prevail.

Remember studying subjects in college that you didn't care about? Why subject our troops to such poor brothers at arms.

Make military service more desirable for people willing to consider it, but definitely do not enact a draft.

Our leaders, PC culture, and MSM already serve as weak links in the chain---having a draft would weaken the US where it is currently the strongest.

Posted by: JSobieski at April 13, 2007 2:22 PM

JSobieski,

I agree completely. A draft would wreck the military. That is precisely the aim of many who propose it.

If one insists that draftees serve in the military, then put them in a new military service--the Occupation Gendarmes. They can man the checkpoints and walk the foot patrols in Iraq or Darfur or anyplace else the multi-culturalists insist we perform "nation building." Put their Wilsonian theories into practice.

Save the regular forces for attacking and destroying the enemy's war-making potential--his forces, his infrastructure, his will to fight.

Posted by: Stendec at April 13, 2007 2:40 PM

On Sep 10, 2001, the US military likely had many contingency plans in case of war. Does anyone believe or have information, that those plans said don't increase the size of the military in case of war?

Did the plans say, keep the army the same size if we go to war as it is now, the lowest since sometime before WWII?

Assuming the plans on Sep 10, 2001 said the active military was to fight until massive reinforcements from a draft were at hand, were those plans wrong?

Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 13, 2007 3:08 PM

Before which war did the plans of the military say don't increase the military? Did the armies of Europe before WWI have plans to not increase the size of the military?

After WWI, did the generals say, our big mistake was increasing the size of the military at the start of the war, let's not make that mistake again?

At the start of WWII, did the military tell the civilians they were amateurs to want to mobilize, and that real military men understood no mobilization was the way you fight wars?

Did 300 Spartans die because the smart thing in war is not to increase the size of the army and their death gave time for the civilians to be told not to increase the size of the military to fight the Persian horde? Did the Spartans say, tell the Athenians we bought them time to keep from mobilizing manpower?

Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 13, 2007 4:01 PM

A one-year draft for young men in Western Europe, where the internal danger from Muslims is greater, and the wilingness to appease them is also more evident, not just by the government and the press, but also by fearful citizens, is a good idea. The United States, having a much less pliant population, may not need it as much. But a draft is useful for other reasons: it creates the conditions of discipline that, for many, then help acquire the habit of self-discipline. Many people -- not all, but many -- in this country and in the West, need their behavior, and attitudes, to be changed before it is too late.

Posted by: Hugh at April 13, 2007 4:16 PM

NOTE TO George W. Bush, President:

"I summon my blue-eyed slaves anytime it pleases me. I command the Americans to send me their bravest soldiers to die for me. Anytime I clap my hands a stupid genie called the American ambassador appears to do my bidding. When the Americans die in my service their bodies are frozen in metal boxes by the US Embassy and American airplanes carry them away, as if they never existed. Truly, America is my favorite slave."
King Fahd Bin Abdul-Aziz, Jeddeh 1993

Posted by: Allahfanculo at April 13, 2007 4:28 PM

We are ON TO you, Herr Bush and Herr SAUdi!!!

Posted by: Allahfanculo at April 13, 2007 4:29 PM

Old Atlantic:

None of the wars you cited were assymetric wars. Moreover, the level of training of most soldiers, even for WWII and Korea pales in comparison to America's 21st century.

European troups don't go through the same rigorous training, so they can implement a draft with less of a decrease in the average training level.

The weapons of modern warfare are incredibly complex. For example, take a look inside a modern tank and compare with a WWII vintage tank.

Its like comparing a paramedic with a brain surgeon.

We do need to mobilize the public to support The Long War, but a draft in my view will have the opposite effect.

Posted by: JSobieski at April 13, 2007 4:58 PM

Standec said:

If one insists that draftees serve in the military, then put them in a new military service--the Occupation Gendarmes. They can man the checkpoints and walk the foot patrols in Iraq or Darfur or anyplace else the multi-culturalists insist we perform "nation building." Put their Wilsonian theories into practice.

Save the regular forces for attacking and destroying the enemy's war-making potential--his forces, his infrastructure, his will to fight.
_______________________________________________
This is an excellent idea. Draftees would get basic jobs filling basic roles. Call it a peace keeping core or Support Services or something.

However, I still think a draft would kill any public support for any military effort.

Cindy Sheehan X a couple of million

Posted by: JSobieski at April 13, 2007 5:03 PM

JSobieski,

Is your basic opposition to public support or you think a draft really would harm the military?

I find it difficult to believe the military have taken their plans for drafts in case of war and concluded not to have a draft in case of a major war.

Training armies for war is a basic job of any military. If our army can't train for war its in trouble. Every army in every age has found a way to train manpower for wars.

In WWI, we went from 200,000 in early 1917 to 1 million in France in May 1918 and we had 2 million in France and 4 million total by Nov 1918 when we won over Germany. We had a low base of officers and experienced military and succeeded. We have a much higher base now than the 200,000 military of early 1917.

We also need to stop all immigration in order to keep our know how and technical base to ourselves, and have a loyal group of scientists, engineers, academia, computer programmers, etc. We can't be the world's spy bin anymore.

I can understand your view that a draft would hurt public opinion. However, our military is not giving us leverage today with Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan to the extent we would want. We want a military that will make them give up the pursuit or possession of nuclear weapons, from spreading their message, and to instead take real steps to separate religion and the state, allow other religions, stop teaching and funding hate, etc.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 13, 2007 5:26 PM

Also, we don't have to beat the German army.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 13, 2007 5:32 PM

quote

The Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle Courses consist of the the seven-week Leader Course, which prepares officers and NCOs to effectively operate a fighting vehicle, and the 12-week Master Gunners Course, which produces thoroughly trained NCOs to assist commanders in planning and implementing Bradley Fighting Vehicle training.

end quote

Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 13, 2007 5:48 PM

Relationship Between Military Training and Civilian Credentials

M1 ABRAMS Tank System Maintainer (63A)

quote

Training:

Job training for an M-1 Abrams Tank Systems Maintainer consists of nine weeks of Basic Training , where you'll learn basic Soldiering skills, and 16 weeks of Advanced Individual Training . Part of this time is spent in the classroom and part in the field. Some of the skills you learn are:

* Electronic and mechanical principles and concepts
* Use of electronic, electrical and mechanical test equipment
* Use of schematics, drawings and wiring diagrams
* Operation, testing and maintenance of weapons systems

end quote

Maintenance likely takes more skill than operating the controls.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 13, 2007 5:58 PM

Its possible that these vehichles were designed for soldiers to maintain in the field under battle conditions without having to know as much as those who designed and built them.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 13, 2007 6:00 PM

Old Atlantic said:

Its possible that these vehicles were designed for soldiers to maintain in the field under battle conditions without having to know as much as those who designed and built them.

______________________________________________

Undoubtedly true, but:

(1) We don't face some massive army (e.g. we don't need to beat the German army)---the Afghanistan model of special forces + air power seems to be the best way to assert force in a sustainable way (e.g. low casualties). What stops us from leveraging our military? The lack of domestic consensus that we are in a war and that Jihad is a substantial threat? If we were unified and had the will to act, our existing resources could wipe the floor with all of the countries you mentioned. Its a matter of will, not military assets. Overly limited rules of engagement are a result of a lack of public consensus.

(2) People who don't want to do something are never as effective as those who do. If we don't need large numbers of soldiers (we could bomb all of the places you mentioned using air power), why dilute the general attitude and moral of the soldiers.

(3) Our culture has changed---can't look to past drafts for guidance. 50% of our society is a "me me me" generation that will simply constitute a virus if injected into the military. Our culture is different than it ever was in the past. My wife works in our public school system. The number of instances of students making accusations, filing lawsuits, alleging abuse, demanding rights, etc. In other words, a modern attitude of entitlement embedded into the military would be DISASTEROUS.

(4) Being "certified" or "qualified" on certain equipment means having a certain minimum level of expertise. A draft will reduce the average skill level of the military. Compare the way 16 year olds drive an automobile after just receiving their license to a seasoned 35 year old. Who is typically a better driver? A volunteer army will on average have more than 5 years of experience. If you have a draft to double the size of the military, the average experience and training level will go down, even if the entitlement attitude wasn't a problem.

(5) A draft will mobilize opposition to the military and its activities because people in the mushy middle will actively oppose a war that requires them to be drafted, while they may not care one way or they other if they are not drafted. The only way a draft wouldn't mobilize opposition would be if the country was truly unified to fight the war (a la WWII), but if that was the case, we would have the will to use the troups we already have far more effectively than we are.

Ultimately, I think the issue of Jihad War comes down to a public desire to confront Jihad. We can't limit immigration without the will. We can't strengthen our military without the will. We can't conduct more sensible diplomacy without the will.

Although in a past era, a draft could actually facilitate public awareness and maybe toughen the collective will, in the current state of our society, I think a draft would do more harm than good.

In terms of what I care about, I care about both the military and maintaining some public support for what the military does. We will need both, and the military needs public support to do its job.

Right now, our military functions a hell of lot better than our public deliberations. I am scared about screwing up the one thing we have the really works well.

I share your interest in using force, and having our enemies cower. I simply disagree that getting a bunch of spoiled brats in the military will be a good thing for the military. We would undoubtedly reform some brats in the process, but giving the military yet another "social services" role is a waste of resources.

Posted by: JSobieski at April 13, 2007 6:37 PM

JSobieski,

I agree with many of your points that a draft will lead to an increase in opposition.

However, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. are moving in the opposite direction of what we want to the most part. Consequently, our current strategy appears to be failing.

Part of this is their assessment that our military is incapable of doing more than it is.

In addition, air strikes on Iran open us up to retaliation at sea. An aircraft carrier has over 5000 men on board. Iran has anti-ship missiles from Russia. We could lose more from retaliation by them at a time of their choosing than by invading Iran.

Air strikes on Iran may have some impact on Pakistan, but may not. Invading Iran lets us establish supply to Afghanistan which then changes the tables on Pakistan. We no longer depend on them.

A draft would put us in position to implement that. This might let us negotiate with Iran to stop its program, and Pakistan and North Korea to give up their systems. Hugh has suggested Pakistan might give up its systems secretly without loss of face. An interesting and innovative idea.

A draft also will give the public a view that we have a military consistent with our taking on the axis of evil. A draft will be for more than just Iraq. Bush currently doesn't communicate well that we have a bigger strategy or purpose than making democracy in Iraq, which is the threat from Iran, North Korea and ultimately Pakistan as well.

I thank you for the high quality of your discussion and believe we are now closer to what the main issue of disagreement is.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 13, 2007 6:53 PM

Old Atlantic:

Thank you for spirited discussion. As the issues pan out, I believe the disagreements can be summarized in the following questions/topics:

(1) will a draft mobilize support or opposition?
(2) will a draft be seen as a sign of strength by foreign countries (because we would be more likely to use force)?
(3) will the military be well served by a draft?

One strategy you, Hugh, and I can agree on is more frequent use of airpower. Soldiers on the ground make a tempting target---why not just destroy key assets from the sky, and let other forces do the work?

For example, I liked Newt's idea about taking out the only Iranian refinery, and blockading gas from entering Iran.

Anyway, it has been a pleasure.

Posted by: JSobieski at April 13, 2007 7:16 PM

Draft will not work..WTO riots would pale in comparison to the civil strife a draft would engender..absolutely infeasible..but perhaps fun to hypothecate upon..

Posted by: Madduck at April 13, 2007 7:46 PM

JSobieski,

I agree with your 3 points, but would add a 4th

(4) Risk of loss from retaliation by Iran or others v. from ground invasion. An aircraft carrier has over 5000 on board. We lost under 175 killed in the ground combat phase in Iraq. If we lost 10 times that in a ground invasion of Iran we lose 1750 which is less than an aircraft carrier. Do we have a better risk reward profile from air strikes on Iran compared to a ground invasion?

I also have enjoyed our discussion and I have learned a great deal from it, as well as from Hugh and others.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at April 13, 2007 7:59 PM

Lame Cherry:
Americans are the best natural combat people in the world. They are perfect for the job and with minimal training they settle into the vocation quite well with a little shooting over them.

Irrelevant, at the moment.

The real area where the "war" is occuring is in the realm of propaganda, and right now with political correctness and left-leaning ideas (which Muslims are past masters at exploiting), they are winning. Only here in JW/DW and a few other small places are they losing (because Islam does have a dark side, which try as they might, they cannot adequately defend).

Until our Infidel politicans, journalists and other media people are properly briefed and know what is at stake, we will continue to lose.

Soldiers come into their own and use AFTER our societies have cottoned on as to what all the Islamic issues are.

Right now Bush is wasting American lives because he is ignorant of who the real enemy is. I have no doubt the war will go extremely well, if all the politicians, media & society were of one mind, the focus being to weaken Islam no matter what and Islamic propaganda is countered the same as Communist propaganda was countered in its day.

The original Rangers did it against an enemy 100 times more formidable than the Muslims in the American Indian. The Minutemen did it against the elite British. Sherman's Army did it against the finest tactical force in the Confederates the world has ever known and Patton did it with green troops against the best army in the world in Germany.
Listen to the people who got shot over some and not the people who are making money off of it, because that is where the Truth is.

I would feel allot more comfortable and safe in Iraq than in East LA or among the mules in the border towns, because in experience and insight one naturally knows what is a situation in Iraq which is a live fire outing compared to the borderland where there is real active firepower marshalled.

The DS will just have too work a little harder when the bosses find out there is a more certain way to expedite troop training than the gump bases in California.

Posted by:

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at April 13, 2007 9:30 PM

Being from a military family and having relatives in the military, it is especially disgusting to us have to have realized the degree of incompetence and apathy revealed by both the bonehead admininstration and military leadership. By taking our eyes off of the Jihadi menance and diverting our superb military to Iraq, it will require years to redirect our resources back to continuing the original unfinished mission.

Our troops and sailors are the best. They deserve competent leadership in both the civilian and military spheres.

Posted by: amana39 at April 13, 2007 10:28 PM

A woman who tells us that "my son, three nephews, and one brother-in-law, are all either active-duty military or just got out." and that, furthermore, "[m]y husband, brother, father, and one brother-in-law are all combat vets of Vietnam" might be given the last word here:

Let's All Blame the Troops for the Mess They're In
By Deanie Mills

"There is a quiet prejudice that shadows much of the war-dialogue I'm reading online; and that is that if you are dumb enough to actually VOLUNTEER to serve in the military during a losing war, then you are, for the most part, a loser yourself. And that, furthermore, we shouldn't feel sorry for hardships enforced on military families since they are, basically, mercenaries.

Over on Huffingtonpost.com, Iraq war vet and anti-war activist Paul Rieckhoff posted a blog, "15 More Months in Iraq? The War is Breaking Our Military."

Here are some of the comments:

"Here we go, another person complaining about the broken military who overlooks the fact that the current US military is an all-volunteer force. In spite of the billions of dollars taxpayers pay to support this so-called best military in the world, the US has not been able to "win" the war in Iraq and Afghanistan...
So much for a "professional" military which sounds alot like a mercenary military. Personnally, I can not offer an opinion about the military because I am not there. But I do know since they are all volunteers, they can leave at the end of their committment. Go work at some other job."

"Can anyone explain to me why anyone in their right mind would enlist or re-enlist to fight in this ill-conceived and mismanaged war? While I have some compassion for those that were fooled into believing that they were going to be fighting the terrorists that attacked us are now trapped in this war, I have none for anyone that signs up now. Surely they have to take some responsibility for their decision, no one is forcing them to sign up and there is more than enough information around to show what an incredibly stupid mistake this war has been. "

"Why are the soldiers putting up with this? As long as you guys sit back and be good soldiers you're going to get sh** on by these guys."

"Only the most rabid right fanatics continue to believe the propaganda coming from the White House, so does that mean that the new enlistees are rabid right fanatics? And if they are do they deserve our support?"

"Who would enlist in this military knowing that once you sign on, you may never be able to sign off? Who in their right mind would ever believe that the US military, any branch of it, will stick to the contract that the recruits sign? Anyone with a lick of sense will never trust what the government says, and if they don't know what a lie is, and they want to find out, they can sign up."

I consider myself a bit of an expert on this subject, since my son, three nephews, and one brother-in-law, are all either active-duty military or just got out.

My husband, brother, father, and one brother-in-law are all combat vets of Vietnam. My husband was a lietenant, an Army infantry platoon leader. His brother was a captain in the U.S. Army Special Forces (Green Berets) and did two tours. My dad retired a Master Gunnery Sgt. in the Marines. He requested Vietnam when he was over 40 and had five kids at home.

My son enlisted in the Marine Corps after 9-11, as soon as he graduated college, because he believed he would be fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. Instead, he did two infantry combat tours in the Anbar province of Iraq. He is still active.

One nephew enlisted in the Marines after high school in order to earn money for college, and because he respected the men in our family and wanted to walk in their footsteps, and because he loves his country. He did three combat infantry tours in Iraq and is in college now.

My brother-in-law (not the Vietnam vet) retired at the rank of Brig. Gen. in the Army Special Forces. His sons are both Army captains, one in SF, and one just deployed to Baghdad. Before he retired, he had deployed to Afghanistan, and one of his sons has been there twice.

I have been fighting against this war since 2002, and my daughter marched against the war in NY during the Republican convention, with her brother's photo pinned to her shirt. Like Barack Obama said, "I'm not against all wars. I'm against dumb wars."

We all love our country, and one of my greatest heartbreaks is seeing what this unneccessary war has done to drive away good NCOs and junior officers like my nephews, who had all planned a military career. One got out as soon as he could. The other two have doubts, now. These multiple deployments are too hard on family life.

My son tends to vote Democratic, and calls me sometimes, asking what the Democrats are doing to end this war. Both he and my nephew returned from Iraq frustrated and angry at the waste of lives they saw there.

Most of the ignorant morons who posted these messages assumed that the entire military who is fighting in Iraq only recently enlisted. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, most of the military who are serving over there right now have been there at least once, twice, or even three times.

NONE OF THEM wanted to return, once they had been. THEY DID SO BECAUSE IT IS THEIR DUTY.

They did so because they are warriors, and this is what warriors do.

They did so because they desperately want the terrible sacrifices paid by their buddies who died and lost limbs and minds over there NOT BE IN VAIN. They want, more than anything, for their own sacrifices to COUNT FOR SOMETHING.

Our fighting forces are not a bunch of mindless morons marching in lockstep to their Fearless Leader's commands. In a recent Army Times survey, a majority of active-duty military polled think it was a mistake to go into Iraq and want the war to end.

And there is a dirty little secret that I seldom see in the news coverage of this war, and that is the "back-door draft" that John Kerry was talking about in '04. Many, many in the military ARE NOT BEING PERMITTED TO LEAVE ONCE THEIR CONTRACTS ARE UP. They are not being allowed to retire, either.

Or, they are allowed out, and then only a few short months later, get yanked up as "reservists" and sent back into the war. Most reservists serving today were active-duty, had gotten out and started whole new lives. It was not their choice to go back in, not by a long shot. Some have been forced back into the military after AS MANY AS 20 YEARS out of the service.

One of the consequences of Sec. Gates's recent announcement is that, let's say, you are deployed, you've been there a couple months, and your military contract runs out. Before, you could go home early, your service completed. No more. Now, you have to stay until the unit goes home.

Some units are being sent months early, without sufficient training. They are being sent when they were told they would not be. They are being forced to remain in-country months past their chance to come home.

Every single time a soldier or Marine re-deploys, he or she knows they are playing a deadly game of Russian Roulette. They know, especially if they are combat troops and not support troops, that their chances of survival are diminished. I can't count the tragic stories I've heard of troops getting killed a week before time to go home after a third deployment.

As for those "new recruits," well, the Army is so desperate to find new cannon fodder that they are waiving high-school diploma requirements and relaxing felony-conviction restrictions. They are offering more money as enlistment bonuses and re-enlistment bonuses, and if your contract is up, you can count on IMMENSE pressure from up above to stay in. A struggling young NCO, trying to support a family, can be tempted by a nice signing bonus.

Not only that, but keep in mind that many new recruits are from poor areas. The vast majority of them come from rural white America--the very place that worships at the feet of Limbaugh and all the neocons that wave the flag so proudly as long as it's somebody else's kid.

What is being done to our United States military is criminal. There is no other word for it.

Most of the people who serve in the military are decent, kind, smart, brave, hard-working young men and women. Their love of country and sense of duty and honor has been CORRUPTED AND ABUSED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and anybody else who just loves to use them for photo ops.

But to blame them for volunteering to serve their country, as if it is a stupid, uninformed, ignorant and blatantly mercenery thing to do...well, that's a crime almost as bad, because what it does is soak into our national consciousness...that we don't really need to worry all that much about ending a war that is being fought by a bunch of dumbasses.

And that is the true shame."

Posted by: Hugh at April 14, 2007 12:52 AM

All of you who have taken the position on the "Draft" that it will somehow denegrate the military, because those drafted will not want to be there miss the very point that your stance illustrates!

Those who are drafted would want to be there if they were getting the facts about Islam, and the reasons we need to fight the WAR AGAINST ISLAMIC JIHADISTS! But because most of the draft age pool of young men and women (I do not subscribe to women in combat roles as a rule) do not have a clue about this current war which began some 30 years ago before they were born; and they were not taught about it in any schooling they had; yes you might hear that they do not want to be there. Those reasons for not being there existed in WWII up until the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Till that time most of the US wanted no part of the war in Europe and were content to let Hitler run. Read the "Politically Incorrect Guide to U.S. History" for some background on this!

The Draft coupled with the factual reasons for its necessity would bring the people and defacto make the Daft un necessary.

Let us bring them the facts!

Posted by: kwg1 at April 14, 2007 1:24 AM

Anyone who blames or otherwise besmirches anyone in the U.S. military for signing up is a Grade A Useful Idiot and on a personal level, a true @#$!$@!$. Our military is made up of our best and brightest.

Whether its NCOs, West Point graduates, ROTC, National Guard, etc., I would rather be governed by 100 military personnel than 100 faculty members at Harvard, 100 leading journalists, 100 college students, or 100 politicians.

God bless the men and women who wear the U.S. uniform. The last and best hope for mankind . . .

You are respected
You are loved
We are in awe of you
Thank You!
Without you and your forebearers, the flame of the West would have died many years ago.
Those who have lived without freedom for a part of the lives know what you have done, do, and will do

Posted by: JSobieski at April 14, 2007 2:23 AM

Anyone who blames or otherwise besmirches anyone in the U.S. military for signing up is a Grade A Useful Idiot and on a personal level, a true @#$!$@!$. Our military is made up of our best and brightest.

Whether its NCOs, West Point graduates, ROTC, National Guard, etc., I would rather be governed by 100 military personnel than 100 faculty members at Harvard, 100 leading journalists, 100 college students, or 100 politicians.

God bless the men and women who wear the U.S. uniform. The last and best hope for mankind . . .

You are respected
You are loved
We are in awe of you
Thank You!
Without you and your forebearers, the flame of the West would have died many years ago.
Those who have lived without freedom for a part of the lives know what you have done, do, and will do

Posted by: JSobieski at April 14, 2007 2:23 AM