Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Preechr
There's no way they'd reintroduce the draft because they've developed a much more stable system.
|
No, they won't reintroduce the draft, because like you already said, it would turn political favor against them, and leave W with a bad tasting legacy in his mouth.
But to call this system "stable" is a bit of a stretch. And speaking of stretching things, that's what's getting done to our reservists and full-time soldiers. We can't reinstitute a draft, so Bush will stretch out every drop of blood and sweat he can get from the saps who volunteered to do this.
"Who will serve?" Well, nobody will if the military developes a reputation for being careless with its reserves, sort of like the Michigan National Guard, who were sent over to Iraq with 48 hours notice, with no training.
I'll repeat myself-- it's a question of allocation. Having a voluntary army of really skillled soldiers who do it out of duty and love is great, but that leaves you with a logistical question. To draft, or not to draft? That is the question. It's not about stability. If our nation desired stability, we'd have enough troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and North Korea (with a few extra in your back pocket for Iran). But the bottom line is that we don't have those resources.
Again, to me, this discussion has become about apples and oranges. We have a great military, and sure, the best military is the voluntary one that comes from within your own people. Machiavelli believed that. But I don't think Machiavelli had the imagination to envision a multi-front war in foreign lands, while at the same time lacking adequate troops. That's not "Imperialism," or "militarism," that's just plain stupid.
Threaded Mode
