The Draft Dodger-In-Chief
Bush isn't alone in that, and we're talking past and present. Lawrence J. Korb and Max A Bergmann write in the LA Times that perhaps the only issue in which there's near-total bipartisan unity in Washington is the opposition to the draft:
By vetoing the initial Iraq war supplemental spending bill because it contained a timetable for withdrawal, President Bush clearly believes that a substantial number of U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq for an indefinite period of time. But how are we going to sustain operations in Iraq beyond 12 to 18 months? The president insists that setting a withdrawal timetable will tie the hands of commanders on the ground, but it is not the timetable that will tie their hands. It is the breaking of the U.S. Army.Currently, our ground forces, specifically the Army, are stretched to their limits. Our soldiers and Marines have been fighting in Iraq for more than four years and in Afghanistan for almost six. To meet the demands of the president's surge, the Army is scrambling to find enough troops. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates has already been forced to extend tours for soldiers serving in Iraq from 12 to 15 months. Soldiers are being sent back to Iraq for their second and third deployments; some have not even been home a year before being sent back. Many new recruits are being sent into intense combat in Baghdad without proper training. And in some cases, the Army has been so desperate that, as Mark Benjamin of Salon magazine first reported, it is even forcing injured soldiers back into combat before they have adequately recovered. Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey recently remarked that "the ground combat capability of the U.S. armed forces is shot."
...Yet the president will never call for the draft. He knows the country would never support the level of sacrifice for this war that implementing a draft would demand. But this is one of the very reasons why the all-volunteer Army was designed the way it was — to prevent a commander in chief from fighting a war that lacks the support of the public.
Instead, the president will lean even more heavily on those who have already served. As a result, troops will be sent back for their third, fourth and fifth deployments; through "stop-loss" orders, soldiers will be prevented from leaving the service even though they have fulfilled their term of duty; deployments will be extended even longer; and the National Guard and Reserves will stay on duty in Iraq, further depleting our already thin domestic response capability.
In the end, the president will not only be unable to stabilize Iraq, he will have destroyed the finest army the world has known.
Posted by aalkon at May 27, 2007 11:52 AM
Comments
"In the end, the president will not only be unable to stabilize Iraq, he will have destroyed the finest army the world has known."
Damn this widespread ignorance, pretending to know what's going on!
CONGRESS HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DECLARE WAR AND FUND THE MILITARY.
The public, eager as they are to single out the MANAGER for their most pitifully small troubles (dammit, not an assistant anything, my French Fries are cold!) completely blows this off. ONE MAN can't do anything to "destroy the finest army". It's the legion of armchair experts, with a page in one hand and an intern in the other, who decided that their own career would be safe if they let the War Powers Act be used.
Do you blog fans even know who your Congresspeople are?
Posted by: Radwaste at May 27, 2007 7:32 AM
Did you notice the term "bi-partisan unity" above? He's not alone in this, but he's the guy leading the charge. Or hadn't you noticed?
And to answer your other question, Jane Harmon. (My congressperson -- who wants us out of Iraq, and supported a bill to revoke authorization for the war and to make Bush get the permission of Congress to continue it under more sensible terms [than just sending American men and women off to be IED fodder].)
Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 27, 2007 8:16 AM
Sorry, I don't have a congressperson of my own.
The military-industrial complex has inflated the price so much I can't afford one.
Posted by: Axman at May 27, 2007 8:35 AM
Raddy, you say this a lot, as if being right about it mattered. But this is a lot like Roe vs Wade... Not the most righteous or stable way to get things done, but good people where in a hurry.
And as with abortion, what we got here is a fait accompli. FOr each individual issue, people will turn to the branch of government most likely to serve their purpose.
Next.
Posted by: Crid at May 27, 2007 8:55 AM
WERE in a hurry.
Typo city today. Hoosiers across the globe get tongue-tied on race day...
Posted by: Crid at May 27, 2007 9:03 AM
Yes, Rad. My Congressman is Joe Sestak, who defeated the GOP incumbent Curt Weldon in 2006.
Also formerly known as Vice Admiral Joseph Sestak. I think he knows a thing or two about the military.
Posted by: Joe at May 27, 2007 9:23 AM
Amy,
I submitted a comment earlier this morning that seems to have been caught in a filter most likely since it contained four links in it.
This is an incredibly important comment. Perhaps the most salient, on topic, relevant and important comment EVER posted. I think it may quite literally be world changing.(*)
If you have some time, could you fish it out?
* okay, not really, but I did spend some time on it, and I liked it....
Thank you!
Posted by: jerry at May 27, 2007 10:10 AM
So sorry, Jerry...my junked comments folder was emptied this morning. If you let me know right away, I can save a comment. But, in the future, please put only one link in per comment, and comments should go through fine. Sorry about that!
Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 27, 2007 10:51 AM
Well, don't blame me if Ed McMahon doesn't come knocking at your door....
My basic comment was that the use of contractors has made it possible to evade the draft, but at huge costs to the American Public.
Not just the taxpayer dollars involved, but the unaccounted deaths of more Americans (917 by last count, 12000 wounded), the unaccountability of the contractors actions in Iraq (murders) and (here's my one link: The cross purposes that contractors work to American goals). There are reports that various Army leaders in Iraq are incensed with how contractors foul up the good feelings that the Army has managed to create at times through heavy-handed, no rules-of-engagement behaviors.
And if you really want to be upset, Blackwater, after Columbine, apparently set up divisions ready to deal with our unruly high school youths.
Favor the Iraq war or not, like a draft or not, there are very serious policy issues towards moving our wars to an outsourced, no public accountability, contractor basis.
Posted by: jerry at May 27, 2007 12:38 PM
"(My congressperson -- who wants us out of Iraq, and supported a bill to revoke authorization for the war and to make Bush get the permission of Congress to continue it under more sensible terms [than just sending American men and women off to be IED fodder].)"
So, Amy - what do you think the arrangement is today, that this bill would change?
Posted by: Radwaste at May 27, 2007 10:40 PM
Leave a comment