OK, just one question. Are you willing to implement a draft and commit to a 10-year occupation of Iraq in order to "win'?

Because if you're not, you're blowing smoke here. Folks here keeping ranting about the cowardly Dems and the need to win, but I have never, ever seen any *realistic* admission of what it will take to settle the situation in Iraq.

Shinseki said it would take 350,000 troops to pacify Iraq after the end of major fighting. We went with half of that. Now Bush tries to add a pathetic 21,500--but only by shortening leaves and extending tours. So, in effect, he's not "adding" anything because There Are No More Troops to add.

Unless you're willing to call for a draft.

Time's up, people. 4 years is too long. It's time to put your money where your mouth is. Are you willing to implement a draft? Because we can't do it without one.

If you're not, you are fundamentally *not* serious about "winning." Your sole purpose is to make political gain out of this.

So what is it, guys? A draft?

Klaus,

The size of the active duty military today is about 500,000 soldiers and sailors less than it was in 1991 (I believe that includes uniformed personnel in combat and non-combat roles).

There was no draft in 1991. So it seems like there's some room for expanding the all-volunteer force, if that's what we need to do. (And the guys at the Weekly Standard have been calling for increasing the size of the military for years now).

As is your habit, you're allowing yourself to being driven by some agenda that's different from the problem being discussed.

You can't increase the size of your military when your potential workforce sees every day on the news how crappy we treat the boys we already have fighting.

Even in Vietnam it was 364 and a wakeup and you went HOME. The Pentagon has been RAPING our servicemen, violating contracts that, if the servicemen violate they go to JAIL, and not arming them, armoring them or supporting the injured when they get home.

Would someone please explain to me why the M-16 is still the U.S. military's weapon of choice. It's roundly agreed worldwide that it's the crappiest assault weapon ever designed. It jams at the drop of a hat. Our boys have to wrap them in pantyhose to keep the sand out. Meanwhile the enemy is using AK-47s. Simply the finest weapon ever made. It will fire wet, dry, filled with mud, jammed with sand, upside-down, underwater, covered in jam. Whatever!

I've been working my arse off trying to convince those around me who are considering military service that the recruiters LIE every chance they get and are encouraged to do so.

"Men who want power but not responsibility for their decisions have no place as leaders in a democracy."

Like our president? The man who says its not his job to try to finish this war just to coast along and make it someone else's problem?

Democrats problem with the "Bush Surge" is that it is not an actual plan. It is, I am going to add more troops and hope for the best. Bush has no plan to rebuild Iraq, has no plan on how to fight terrorism. The man has no strategy in Iraq and is just trying anything in hopes of making himself look better.

Andrew, the sole item on my "agenda" is to expose bad thinking. For example:

...it seems like there's some room for expanding the all-volunteer force, if that's what we need to do...

Do you mean that? Have you any idea of what has been happening? The Army can't get recruits. It's had to cut standards, and they still can't get enough.

Given that, how, pray tell, do you expect to increase the size of our all-volunteer army?

And Shinseki recommended 350,000 troops, or more than twice as many as are there. So,yeah,there's a whole LOT of room, but very few takers.

Any other ideas? I thought not.

Because I keep hearing "stay the course" but none of your folks advocating a get-tougher policy have any idea of how we're supposed to to this. And how long will it take?

Since you're unaware of recruitment problems, I'll assume you are also unaware that David Petraeus just said that there is no military solution to the problem in Iraq. Who's he? Some commie pinko? Uh, he's CinC in Iraq.

Got that? No solution. So even if we had another 250,000 troops to send, that probably wouldn't work. Heck, we had half a million in Vietnam, and that didn't work.

If forcible occupation worked, the British and French would still have empires. Ever hear of the French in Algeria? Or the British in Iraq? Or, how about the Soviets in Afghanistan? Those all worked out.

And then there's the blow-back when Nancy Pelosi went to Syria. Nixon went to China. Reagan went to the USSR. The feigned outrage about her trip was ludicrous. Syria and Iran are necessary to any real solution in Iraq. Bush's refusal to talk to them is simply yet more proof that he is not in the least serious about the war.

Bush is a moral coward. He doesn't have the guts to face the American people and them us that it will take a ten-year commitment and 500,000 troops, which probably means a draft. Nor does he have the guts to admit that we can't win this militarily--as Gen Petraeus just said.

His entire "plan" is to stall and dodge just long enough to dump the whole mess onto his successor. Then, when he (or she) does the right thing, Bush will be the first to complain how his (nonexistent) strategy "just needed more time," and that the liberals and the media stabbed him in the back.

Because that's why the Soviets lost in Afghanistan. Those liberal commies and that pesky media spoiled the whole thing.

Let's put Petraeus' comments in context:

He said that "any student of history recognizes there is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency in Iraq."

"Military action is necessary to help improve security ... but it is not sufficient," Petraeus said. "A political resolution of various differences ... of various senses that people do not have a stake in the successes of Iraq and so forth - that is crucial. That is what will determine, in the long run, the success of this effort."

That's worlds away from the "lost cause" impression that you give. Indeed, I'd point out that it is Petraeus's recognition of the military's role in a broader solution that leads him to believe that he doesn't need the 350,000 troops that Shinseki said would be needed to "occupy" Iraq. We're not occupying Iraq because we have learned that "forcible occupation" doesn't work.

I'd further argue that one aspect of the political (i.e., non-military) component of the solution is to present to allies and enemies in Iraq alike a resolve not to let the country slip into chaos. That is why Pelosi's trip was outrageous: because she embarked on it in stark contrast and opposition to the President of the United States — a title that both Nixon and Reagan held on their own ventures, by the way.

Let’s see, Klaus.

You start off by saying we should reinstate the draft, and that we need a 10-year commitment and 500,000 troops to win. There’s agenda #1. Then you tell me we can’t “win this militarily”, right after you’ve told me we need to add 500,000 troops. There’s agenda #2. Then you tell me that “forcible occupation” can never work, and declare the American attempt to build democracy in Iraq to be equivalent to a pre-World War II imperialism. There’s agenda #3. By the end, you’ve told me that you want the U.S. to reinstate the draft, to send 500,000 troops into a situation you don’t believe can be won militarily, under any circumstance, because imperialism doesn’t work

So since you’ve obviously not thinking this through in any strategic sense, why don’t you just tell us what ideological agenda it is that leads you to blurt out whichever “because America is strong it must be wrong” thought that happens to pop into your stream of consciousness.

Klaus, you've kind of had your butt handed to you here. Let me finish the process.

With regard to France and England, if resource ransacking imperialism were our goal, the oil would have started flowing from Iraq to Texas about three years and eleven months ago. As it turns out, it didn't and you are wrong.

As to Pelosi in Syria, Reagan in the USSR and Nixon in China, I refer you to the Constitution of the United States. Reagan and Nixon occupied the Office of President, where conduct of foreign policy is vested. It was impressive when they made overtures to our enemies because they had the power of the office. Pelosi is the Speaker of the House. Anyone she dealt with, while being polite to her, would have known that she had no power and that any representations she made were meaningless.

That about wraps it up, Klaus. The one mistake you did not make was to include a Nazi comparison and I do commend you for that.