Let me get this straight... Bush pulls a fast one - invades Iran... and there

[salin]

shouldn't be any discussion about how such an invasion is manned? No discussion of a draft allowed when discussing an imminent invasion (given the scenario that bushco was forcing an imminent invasion).

I thought we considered ourselves a 'reality-based community.'

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that central to what Rangel is saying? No new invasion without a draft - ala a new military adventure COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED.

Granted as long as Bushco refrains from new military invasions - the discussion is rhetorical. But if the discussion plays out long enough... and bushco starts a new propaganda push for more war then this time the criticism of 'no long term plan' as was made by senators before the Iraq war though those doing some of the criticism - still voted for it.

Seriously - how in the world could the US sustain another simultaneous war? With other administrations - we could at least assume someone in power and policy-making capacity would be asking such questions... but in the "we create reality, you report it, we change and create a new reality" administration - they have proven not to work from reality. Frankly, it is not beyond the imagination that this admin just might make one more play for war - in an effort to reclaim "war president levels of support" (come on - everything bush does is intended to meet some kind of political calculus). Why not be ready by having the public primed to the idea of the question:

CAN we MAN such an additional war WITHOUT a draft? (No we can not.) So link any future debate per a bush inspired war - directly to the requirement of such a war as having a draft to man the war. The public would have to weigh out... buy the rhetoric enough to be willing to fight (as might have been the case were the question asked and coupled to Afghanistan in 2001) - or don't support the fight.

As to those of you who fear that Rangel just cost us the 2008 election... right - the democratic majority is going to act on this immediately... hint: it isn't on Pelosi's agenda.

Back to my main question. If I read the gnashing of teeth in the forum correctly - many are asserting, that even if bush took on another invasion - there should be NO discussion, preceding such an invasion, of a draft as a means of 'manning' such an invasion. Sorry, but *that*, imo, is not reality. I am very, very tired of living in a country - right or left - that ignores reality when it suits one's beliefs.

[onenote]

1. you thought this was a "reality-based" community? LOL!

Some DUers are reality based, but some are not. Hard to say which group is on top at any given moment. By the way, how well did the August invasion of Iran turn out? Or the one that some insisted would occur right before election day. For that matter, anyone seen the $1 increase in gas prices that some insisted would occur between election day and thanksgiving? And anyone got a street address for any of the 300 soldiers that supposedly died in the ammo dump explosion (that really was a nuclear bomb explosion)?

[salin]

6. I was never one who predicted an invasion

btw. Indeed for years I have suggested I expected no "October surprise". But your point (per the shrieks du jour ala DU) is well taken.

I do think, however, when the bush admin poises with bellicose language - the American public (and media) should always be asking questions that were not asked in the lead up to the IWR, and to the invasion of Iraq itself. At what cost. How do we man this while also continuing work in Afghanistan (answer - we gutted the efforts in Afghanistan).

If every time Bush said something asininely provocative per NK, Syria and/or Iran (what was it the other day... that he wouldn't be surprised if Israel struck Iran?) - that the public started asking REALITY-BASED questions of the admin - sooner or later he would look so emasculated that he would become impotent to continue doing damage (domestic policy as well as foreign policy) to this country in the two LONG years we have left with him.

on edit: spelling error.

[onenote]

9. didn't mean to suggest that you were part of the over-the-top crowd

sorry if it came across that way..

[salin]

10. thanks, your point was well taken

and I didn't take it that way - just wanted to keep the record clear for any casual readers :D

[Phredicles]

2. So then dammit, say, No new invasion PERIOD, rather than

this "No new invasion without a draft" crap.

[salin]

7. Didn't work so well to stave off

the Iraq adventure, did it?

[Nite Owl]

3. If it is going to cost anyone anything it

should be the GOP frontrunner John McCain. He's the one who wants to send in whole lot more troops. Without a draft how are we going to do that? Keep telling the troops there they have to stay another year or two or three? That is a draft, they are already doing it. There is a cost to their wars and before we keep getting in deeper we have to discuss where the troops will come from.

[salin]

8. agreed. That is the point... from where? How does this policy work?

The questions that should have been asked years ago. Oh, they were asked by some in the Pentagon - but they got fired and black-balled by Rumsfeld.

[Strelnikov_]

4. Couldn't Agree More. Including Any Limited 'Airstrike' Option, That 'Kinder, Gentler' War

they are trying to sell for Iran.

All it will take is a 'limited' airstrike, followed by some rogue Revolutionary Guard commanders throwing away the script that Tehran has already written (restraint) in the event of airstrike, for said 'limited' airstrike blowing up into a major theater-wide war.

With Iran's fractured command and control, State within a State, structure, the sky is the limit on how quickly things can spin out of control. My feeling is that the leadership (Mullah's, elected civilian officials) plan on (relative) restraint following a 'limited' air strike, and will parley their standing in the region against the aggressor to build a wider coalition for the future. Thing is, the Revolutionary Guard, who seem to be the keepers of the 'martyr' warrior ethic, will probably have things other than restraint on their minds.

Regarding the 'airstrike' option, anyone have any doubts what the Air Force needs $50B for 'ongoing' operations for?

Oh, that's right. It's to transport wounded soldiers, next year.

$50 BILLION . . .

to transport injured soldiers . . .

next year . . .

Hey, works for me.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/2140

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-10-31T165429Z_01_N31200647_RTRIDST_0_ARMS-BUDGET-UPDATE-1.XML

[salin]

11. Wonder how much of that is for bloated contractor

and defense industrial complex payoffs... er I mean contracts. It is particularly telling, in that AP article, that most of this war has been funded by 'emergency funding' - while across the entire Vietnam war there were only two 'emergency funding' vehicles - all the rest was covered through the regular budgeting process.

[achtung_circus]

5. Kick

to read at home, before I get fired.

[MGD]

12. Pulling out of Bosnia/Kosovo would be a better means of freeing up muscle for Iraq.

Yugoslavia has no US strategic value what-so-ever and the Serbians and Bosniacs have complied with the Dayton Peace Accords for quite a while now. I don't think they'll resume hostilities any time soon.

Attacking Iran is a hell of a lot different than invading and occupying Iran; furthermore, if we enacted the draft today, it would probably take about 1.5-2 years before the conscripts were anywhere near ready for a mission such as war with Iran. Even then, it would be a huge mistake to think that we could occupy the country afterwards. We could destroy Iran easily enough but occupying them is another story. We would have to bomb them until they surrendered unconditionally and I just don't see any of this happening but I could be wrong. Eitehr way, pulling out of Yugoslavia would be far better.