Comments on: Start the draft, end the war

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 03:00:52 +0000

While I absolutely believe that a draft would cause the entire Country to sacrafice and therefore would heighten the anti war debate, I am fine if you nutcases want no draft. Certify that there will NEVER be a draft and then I say, go for it… go fight all these nutty wars and leave me out of it. Hell, these are great for the economy and great for those who work in industries which are engaged with defense contracts. Go fight and keep the contracts coming!!!

By: Mark L

Mark L — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:38:25 +0000

Matt asked: “. . . weâ€™ve had the good fortune of comparatively low casualty wars (compared with past ones). Is that a function of modern war in general, or just the lopsided opponents weâ€™ve chosen?” I suspect that the answer is yes. It is a combination of the traits of modern warfare and the poor quality of our opponents. The technology of modern warfare makes destruction more selective. A soldier on the ground with the right communications equipment can call down a 500-pound or 1000-pound bomb down with accuracies of plus or minus 50 meters. That means a few dozen bombs do the damage of the whole St. Lo carpet bombing of WWII. That means fewer opportunities for anyone other than the targetted soldiers (innocent civilians, for example) to get hit and hurt. Additionally, targeting for personal weapons is getting better, resulting in fewer rounds being fired by the 21st century army. (One bullet is enough to take a man out. In the past, the other 49 bullets were fired to keep the other guy’s head down, and to keep the other guy busy. Today, one shot, one kill, and keep silent until then is getting to be more and more common. The battlefield is actually getting quieter.) The net result is that 21st century armies are becoming deadlier dsepite getting smaller, while at the same time providing a lot fewer targets for their enemies to hit. In WWII a blind barrage was bound to cause some casualties just because of the density of soldiers on the battlefield. At the same time, our opponents seem to get their gunnery training from gangsta flicks. They shoot wildly, and generally high, filling the area with so much smoke and confusion that they cannot see to hit anything. And their bullets generally fly over our troops anyway. Most get very little practice, and generally do not survive on the battlefield long enough to learn the error of their ways. Those few that through random chance do, still lack the targetting technology of the 21st century army and are simply not very effective. If they hit one of our soldiers (because they wait to aim, and fire short bursts to prevent the shots from going high), they announce themselves as a threat to be neutralized, and become the prime target of the 21st century army soldiers. (Kill the few guys that can kill you.) All this stuff goes through cycles, but the cycle right now is more power to the individual soldier, requiring smaller armies. No doubt in another 50 or so years, the new technologies will have become fully integrated and the only solution will be to increase the size of armies, and we will once again be fielding dozens of corps instead of dozens of battalions.

By: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad

Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 07:56:03 +0000

The purpose the Left wants a draft is to increase opposition to Bush and the War, and increase the Victimization feelings of college students. If they really wanted more bodies, one would support offering a new American Foreign Legion, for automatic front of the line immigration consideration for foreigners wanting to immigrate to America, and willing to serve for two (or three?) years in the US military — after joining a preparatory English Language brigade which teaches English and Basic boot camp.

By: Assistant Village Idiot

Assistant Village Idiot — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 03:36:36 +0000

Joan, arguments like this tend to cut both ways. If we feared our daughters were next up to be beaten and raped, as has become more common in Europe, we might be less likely to tolerate crazy antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan.

By: Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » Why Is It?

Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » Why Is It? — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:26:49 +0000

[…] UPDATE: Others: Brainster, Austin Bay, Wizbang, […]

By: Mwalimu Daudi

Mwalimu Daudi — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:24:04 +0000

It seems that the anti-war movement is losing steam, especially after yesterday’s revelation about the inconvenient WMD that have been found in Iraq. I guess Joan Vennochi is trying to drum up a little business and jump-start her sagging movement.

By: Warmongering Lunatic

Warmongering Lunatic — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:22:04 +0000

Casey Sheehan volunteered to serve his country, re-upped when it was clear that we’d be going to war in Iraq, and volunteered for the mission on which he was killed. A patriot and hero, he deserved much, much better than to be used as a prop for antiwar hysterics. His mother, blinded by a combination of grief and pre-existing ideology, can be forgiven. The cynical leftists who hyped her cause cannotXXXX ED NOTE: This got tossed in the a spam moderation file–which is unusual because the f-bomb usually gets eaten by the filter automatically. See the rules on comments for this site. I plucked it out of the spam file and cut the f-bomb. If you don’t like the rules for the site, there are plenty of other places to go. (type in comments on the search– the rules have been posted four or five times).

By: T. Shaw

T. Shaw — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 17:02:03 +0000

Hadji girl, I love you! Regarding ‘Americans making a sacrifice’ in the GWOT: about 3,000 people were sacrificed on 9/11 and we have nmot hgad more due to our brave airmen, marines, sailors and soldiers; the efforts of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and plain old luck.

By: Mycroft

Mycroft — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:47:43 +0000

About the draft, I do wonder — as a country, we’ve had the good fortune of comparatively low casualty wars (compared with past ones). Is that a function of modern war in general, or just the lopsided opponents we’ve chosen? And if the latter, should a war against a more serious opponent break out, would the demand for replacements exceed the supply of volunteers? And would that be a situation where we would need a draft?

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:08:47 +0000

>>we might be less likely to shake our heads at crazy antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan. At least she acknowledges that Cindy Sheehan is crazy. >>We can turn from the front page headlines of war, death, and destruction to sports and celebrity gossip; a click of the remote, and the face of a young soldier, now dead, fades to “Friends” reruns or “America’s Next Top Model.” And people didn’t have the ability to flip through their newspaper or change TV channels 30-40 years ago? Idiot. >>involvement in a war we can’t end or win We can end it pretty quickly — if we lose our spine and pull out. As for “we can’t win”. Zarqawi takes a different view. Again, idiot. >>Rangel’s website noted, “Right now, the only people being asked to sacrifice in any way are those men and women who, with limited options, chose military service Hey, Joan, try reading the DOD’s report on the demographic breakdown of those who serve. That way, you won’t look like such a fool when you tout Rangel’s patently false statement.