Why Not Draft?

Gen. William Westmoreland, testifying before President Nixon's Commission on an All-Volunteer [Military] Force, denounced the idea of phasing out the draft and putting only volunteers in uniform, saying that he did not want to command "an army of mercenaries." Friedman, a member of the 15-person commission, interrupted him. "General," Friedman asked, "would you rather command an army of slaves?" Westmoreland got angry: "I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves." And Friedman got rolling: "I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries." And he did not stop: " If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general. We are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher." As George Shultz liked to say: "Everybody loves to argue with Milton, particularly when he isn't there."

Dave, at this late date, do you still believe that we went into Iraq for defensive reasons?

Haven't you heard about the Downing Street Memo, yellowcake, cylinders, etc.?
We went in to grab the country's oil,

and Bush thought it would be an easy victory

Quote:

Gen. William Westmoreland, testifying before President Nixon's Commission on an All-Volunteer [Military] Force, denounced the idea of phasing out the draft and putting only volunteers in uniform, saying that he did not want to command "an army of mercenaries." Friedman, a member of the 15-person commission, interrupted him. "General," Friedman asked, "would you rather command an army of slaves?" Westmoreland got angry: "I don't like to hear our patriotic draftees referred to as slaves." And Friedman got rolling: "I don't like to hear our patriotic volunteers referred to as mercenaries." And he did not stop: " If they are mercenaries, then I, sir, am a mercenary professor, and you, sir, are a mercenary general. We are served by mercenary physicians, we use a mercenary lawyer, and we get our meat from a mercenary butcher." As George Shultz liked to say: "Everybody loves to argue with Milton, particularly when he isn't there."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/11/17/milton_friedman/index.html

Best idea is to privatize it and call it Halliburton War and let them bear the burden in terms of financing and personnel.

There's all sorts of avenues that we could allow foreign countries/gov'ts to take oevr. The UN is working on that as we speak.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

There's all sorts of avenues that we could allow foreign countries/gov'ts to take oevr. The UN is working on that as we speak.

I doubt that education and/or knowledge matters, but ... the UN is an international organisation with 191 foreign member states - and the USA.

And this will be confusing, but: the World Trade Organization (WTO) - 148 foreign members plus the USA - is an international, multilateral organisation, which sets the rules for the global trading system ...

&....your point is?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

And this will be confusing, but: the World Trade Organization (WTO) - 148 foreign members plus the USA - is an international, multilateral organisation, which sets the rules for the global trading system ...

see above post

LoneStarMadam wrote:

&....your point is?

That your above is nonsense.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

And this will be confusing, but: the World Trade Organization (WTO) - 148 foreign members plus the USA - is an international, multilateral organisation, which sets the rules for the global trading system ...

see above post

Here my point is that the UN doesn't deal with trade per se but the WTO, a totally different organisation.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

There's all sorts of avenues that we could allow foreign countries/gov'ts to take oevr. The UN is working on that as we speak.

I doubt that education and/or knowledge matters, but ... the UN is an international organisation with 191 foreign member states - and the USA.

I would think the warmongering conservatives would love this idea. With a bigger army we can have bigger wars. We can invade Iran and Syria. As it stands now we can't even whip a bunch of insurgents in Iraq with what we have not to mention Afghanistan, which we are also losing.

I want to make it abundantly clear: if there's anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.

This is a Halliburton War from its inception with Cheney's secret energy meeting with oil executives. US troops should not be fighting a war to profit Halliburton and the oil executives. Let Halliburton provide their own mercenaries to fight and expect no governmental protection.

This is a Halliburton War from its inception with Cheney's secret energy meeting with oil executives. US troops should not be fighting a war to profit Halliburton and the oil executives. Let Halliburton provide their own mercenaries to fight and expect no governmental protection.

How about oil and fuel? Well the war was all about oil wasn't it? You bet it was. It was all about oil for the Iraqi people! They have no other income, they produce nothing else. Oil is 95 percent of the Iraqi GNP. For this nation to survive, it must sell oil.

The Refinery at Bayji is [operating] at 75 percent of capacity producing gasoline. The crude pipeline between Kirkuk (Oil Central) and Bayji will be repaired by tomorrow (2 June). LPG, what all Iraqis use to cook and heat with, is at 103 percent of normal production and we, the U.S. Army, are ensuring it is being distributed fairly to all Iraqis.

You have to remember that only three months ago, all these things were used by the Saddam regime as weapons against the population to keep them in line. If your town misbehaved, gasoline shipments stopped, LPG pipelines and trucks stopped, water was turned off, power was turned off.

Now, until exports start, every drop of gasoline produced goes to the Iraqi people. Crude oil is being stored and the country is at 75 percent capacity right now. They need to export or stop pumping soon, so thank the U.N. for the delay.

All LPG goes to the Iraqi people everywhere. Water is being purified as best it can be, but at least its running all the time to everyone.

Are we still getting shot at? Yep.

Are American soldiers still dying? Yep, about one a day from my outfit, the 4th Infantry Division, most in accidents, but dead is dead.

If we are doing all this for the Iraqis, why are they shooting at us?

The general Iraqi population isn't shooting at us. There are still bad guys who won't let go of the old regime. They are Ba'ath party members (Read Nazi Party, but not as nice) who have known nothing but and supported nothing but the regime all of their lives. These are the thugs for the regime who caused many to disappear in the night. They have no other skills. At least the Nazis [in Germany] had jobs and a semblance of a national infrastructure that they could go back to after the war, as plumbers, managers, engineers, etc. These people have no skills but terror. They are simply applying their skills ... and we are applying ours.

There is no Christian way to say this, but they must be eliminated and we are doing so with all the efficiency we can muster. Our troops are shot at literally everyday by small arms and Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs). We respond. One hundred percent of the time, the Ba''ath party guys come out with the short end of the stick.

The most amazing thing to me is that they don't realize that if they stopped shooting at us, we would focus on fixing things more quickly and then leave back to the land of the Big PX. The more they shoot at us, the longer we will have to stay.

Lastly, all of you please realize that 90 percent of the damage you see on TV was caused by Iraqis, not by us and not by the war. Sure, we took out a few bridges from military necessity, we took out a few power and phone lines to disrupt communications, sure we drilled a few palaces and government headquarters buildings with 2000 lb. laser guided bombs (I work 100 yards from where two hit the Tikrit Palace), [but] he had plenty to spare.

But, any damage you see to schools, hospitals, power generation facilities, refineries, pipelines, was all caused either by the Iraqi Army in its death throes or from much of the Iraqi civilians looting the places.

Could we have prevented it? Nope.

We can and do now, but 45 days ago, the average soldier was fighting for his own survival and trying to get to his objectives as fast as possible. He was lucky to know what town he was in much less be informed enough to know who owned what or have the power to stop 1,000 people from looting and burning a building by himself.

The United States and our allies, especially Great Britain, are doing a very noble thing here. We stuck our necks out on the world's chopping block to free an entire people from the grip of a horrible terror that was beyond belief.

I've already talked the weapons of mass destruction thing to death - bottom line, who cares? This country was one big conventional weapons ammo dump anyway. We have probably destroyed more weapons and ammo in the last 30 days than the U.S. Army has ever fired in the last 30 years (remember, this is a country the size of Texas), so drop the WMD argument as the reason we came here. If we find it great if we don't, so what?

I'm living in a "guest palace" on a 500-acre palace compound with 20 palaces with like facilities built in half a dozen towns all over Iraq that were built for one man. Drive down the street and out into the countryside five miles away like I have and see all the families of 10 or more, all living in mud huts and herding the two dozen sheep on which their very existence depends ..then tell me why you think we are here.

WMD is an important issue. We have to find them wherever they may be (in Syria?), but that is not our real motivator. Don't let it be yours either.

Respectfully,

ERIC RYDBOM MAJOR, ENGINEER
Deputy Division Engineer
4th Infantry Division

Walter Hinteler wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

There's all sorts of avenues that we could allow foreign countries/gov'ts to take oevr. The UN is working on that as we speak.

I doubt that education and/or knowledge matters, but ... the UN is an international organisation with 191 foreign member states - and the USA.

Education does matter and despite the world body, a sovereign nation that is being threatened has the right to defend itself. You obviously count yourself among the educated and as an educated person, I am sure you are familiar with the concept of 20-20 hindsight. Even if you are one who ascribes to the notion that Saddam never stockpiled WMD, the prevailing intelligence at the time of the initial U.S. invasion was that Saddam did possess WMD. As to the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the Middle East, the U.S. and the rest of the world, and perhaps as a student of American history, you would entertain some of the admonitions and warnings from key democratic leaders at that time and several years leading up to the U.S. led Iraqui invasion.

If you like, I will be happy to post it again for your review.