Charlie Wrangle seems to be the only one interested in bringing back the draft, an army of draft dodgers, unsupportable military actions, as well as a lesser then professional force then we already have today.

He's pathetic.

I knew it was you before I moused-over the link. It really appals me to see Rangel trying this again.

No draft. Blech.

Ostensibly because soldiers are uneducated morons ala John Kerry's impression

This just keeps getting old. My college GPA was higher than Kerry's. It's not politically correct to call us wrong or evil anymore for fighting the war, so now we're subservient, uneducated ignoramuses, entrapped by the powers of our wicked master. The condescension is killing me, couldn't people just go back to spitting in our face and calling us baby-killers?

I did however feel a new twinge of betrayal when they joked about the stupidity of soldiers on Family Guy..............arrgh. Where else can I find such a combination of musical theatre and toilet bowl humor?

The condescension is killing me, couldn't people just go back to spitting in our face and calling us baby-killers?

Indeed, at least that put the hate right out there for all to see...

James Taranto has been running letters from GIs after Kerry's and Rangel's "stupid" comments.  WHile I knew that the average soldier was not an idiot (that was mcNamarras idiocy to try to make them so), I was very impressed with some of the credentials of those writing to Taranto.  Indeed, I have seen enough GIs posting on this site to know that "stupid" and "soldier" do not belong in the same sentence (however stupid and congress is another issue).

Amen Doc! Congress and stupid in the same sentence is practically a necessity.

Well I do believe that he first suggested that some in congress want a draft, and that there is national support for it, and then it was that there is a disproportionate percentage of blacks in the army and being killed in Iraq, and now he is the one calling for the draft. While a great number of congress persons as well as the vast majority of political opinion is for a reduction in the commitment rather then an expansion of an army and armed forces presence in Iraq.

A draft would greatly increase our ability to field troops, yet if the goal was to be occupiers that might be a good way of achieving it. The goals have been stability and security, then economic development, and allowing a peace loving nation to grow from a good base where people have jobs and occupations rather then unrest and destruction all around them.

The security goal hasn't been achieved for the place it needs to be most secure, i.e. the capital. To suggest a draft, would assist in this goal or any other military goal is to not understand what is needed, and that is a re-delineation of the goals. A new goal that is realistic. The way of life in Iraq depends largely on what the Iraq people are willing to take up arms and carve out of chaos for themselves, with our help of course, but helping to fight the good fight and fighting the entire fight are two different things.

In the last few months progress has been made in training additional troops in the Iraqi guard and army, so if anything the commitment of U.S. troops should only need to be decreasing not increasing.

The President of the United States is at odds with just about everybody in thinking that we need to increase our commitment, in the past two years, a major shift in everybody below him was executed during the process of building a new cabinet, lately it has been restructuring the military command in Iraq, and civilian leadership over and over in Iraq.

This isn't the 51st state folks, The president can do all he wants, and wish all he wants, what the reality is Iraqis are going to have to stand up for their neighborhoods or die in submission of a policy of violence.

We have yet to see significant progress in the reduction of violence in the last 3 months, 3 months before that no reduction either. Reducing the number of troops would have three benefits, if their tactical deployments were just reduced, not changed...

-reducing the potential number of U.S. troop casualties
-allowing a re-deployment into Iraq if the situation became vastly worse then it is (hard to image)
-truly giving the reigns to the Iraqis and forcing them to make their own sacrifices and choices.

Its a long and bloody struggle either way. The country may fall apart into two or three separatist states anyway even with our help. What matters is we do not have a draft or a huge army, a very powerful one, and an over-deployed one, we also have other interests in the world potentially needing attention. China, North Korea, and Iran for starters.

I hope if they reinstate the draft they up the max age to 42. I'd hate to miss out on my chance to wow the draft board with the aforementioned performance of a few bars of "Alice's Restaurant". LOL.

But seriously, I would be DQ'ed pretty quickly. About the only service I could offer today's military are my computer skills, and there are thousands out there better than I at it.

I'm sure they could find a job for me, I'd love to get behind an M4, or sit in an F-22 and shoot down some Mig's if I could just see far enough.

I imagine that carrying a loaded pistol while on staff duty would be fun. (Not)
It would be needed due to the influx of criminals who would end up in the military.
We've seen it before, and it's not pretty, and this was in the early days of the All volunteer military.

The issue may not be WANT but NEED. If we try and increase the ground forces by 100,000, it remains to be scene if that can be accomplished under an ALL Volunteer force.

The issue may not be WANT but NEED. If we try and increase the ground forces by 100,000, it remains to be scene if that can be accomplished under an ALL Volunteer force.

Some American people believe in defending it more than you think they do Col. This is one of this things that you can only have an opinion on and not be able to prove it will be how you put it.

Ah yes, the draft that some people here said would happen years ago. 

There is not going to be a draft, this is nothing but scare tactics. 

Ah yes, the draft that some people here said would happen years ago. There is not going to be a draft, this is nothing but scare tactics.

ID,

Yes, but scare tactics with Congress' new darling (Rangel) drumming up the hype.

"If we try and increase the ground forces by 100,000"

Congress will pull the funding out from under the president, regardless of the political fallout, and in fact, the democrats will actually benefit from doing that. The troops won't but then it comes time for President Bush to make "hard decisions" instead of the Iraqi's. Iraq should be fighting this war anyway. If they want the damn freedom they have to die trying to get it, or make the sacrifices to get it.

"Ah yes, the draft that some people here said would happen years ago.
There is not going to be a draft, this is nothing but scare tactics."

I agree, the only situation you could expect to see a draft, is nuclear war, or another state sponsored war, China for example, rather then the occasional terrorism action. Something that threatens mainland United States with invasion is probably the only one that will happen in the next 25-50 years.