Bush War Adviser: Let's Consider a Draft

"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute and deputy national security adviser said in an interview with National Public Radio.

"There's both a personal dimension of this, where this kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living room conversations within these families," he said. "And ultimately, the health of the all-volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions."

Who ever said there was anything wrong with being obvious? Generally speaking, long drawn-out wars in unfriendly urban climates tend to induce a fair amount of stress amongst all involved parties.

article from Breit Bart

A Little Congressional Investigation

As Washington tries to figure out how best to maintain the Surge for another year, the Congressional Budgeting Office launched an official review of what the potential effects of a draft might be.

"Drafting people could make it easier for the Army to reach its 2012 goal of 547,000 soldiers. It might also save some money if Congress opted to pay draftees less than volunteers. But the downside, the report claims, would be a less effective fighting force, thanks to a sudden influx of draftees who would remain in uniform for much shorter spells than today's all-volunteer soldiers."

Nice. Well, at least it's nice to know that if you got drafted, at least you wouldn't have to worry about what to do with all that extra money you'd be saving while fighting for your country.

article from NY Times

The Young People Have Spoken

In a recent survey of that magical demographic, the 17-29 age group,

"42 percent of young Americans thought it was likely or very likely that the nation would reinstate a military draft over the next few years — and two-thirds said they thought the Republican Party was more likely to do so. And 87 percent of respondents said they opposed a draft.."

In other words, nearly half of the potential candidates for military service believe that their leaders will force them into war. Those are some staggering numbers. Here's to hoping that the youth, in this case, is wrong.

article from NY Times

In Iraq for the Long Haul

"Gen. David Petraeus, Iraq war commander, on Sunday suggested that conditions on the ground might not be stable enough by September to justify a drop in force levels and predicted that stabilizing Iraq could take as long as a decade."

Hmmm... As long as a decade? Where do those troops all come from? At this rate, anyone who signs up for military service might as keep their calendar open for the next ten years or so.

article from MSNBC

Extend Those Tours, People! We're in a War!

"Beginning immediately, all active-duty Army soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan will serve 15-month tours — three months longer than the usual standard, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday."

You have to feel for these poor guys and girls. It's just, where are we going to find more troops for this war?

article from MSNBC

Billion Dollars for Bonuses

Don't get me wrong, but I'm fairly sure there are better ways to spend a billion dollars than on paying off our soldiers to re-enlist. These guys are heroes, yes, but so are teachers, and last time I checked, none of them got $150,000 bonuses for agreeing to stay on for another six years. Granted, they're not getting shot at and killed on a daily basis.

"Besides underscoring the extraordinary steps the Pentagon must take to maintain fighting forces, the rise in costs for re-enlistment incentives is putting strains on the defense budget, already strapped by the massive costs of waging war and equipping and caring for a modern military."

article from the MSNBC

Afghanistan Troop Increase

Looks like Iraq isn't the only place that needs new troops.

"President Bush said today that extending the stay of 3,200 American troops in Afghanistan would help the NATO-commanded force there combat an anticipated spring offensive by the Taliban. Mr. Bush said the those troops would remain there for another four months and then would be replaced by new force of comparable size that would remain there for the “foreseeable future.” The increase would boost American forces in the country to 27,000, the highest level since 2001."

Well, at least NATO is providing the majority of the troops - at least the burden doesn't follow solely on the Americans.

"Of the 35,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, about 13,000 are American. About 9,000 other American troops in the country operate outside the NATO mission."

Whoops.

article from the New York Times