Righties adamantly and consistently refuse to look at the fundamental reason there is talk about a draft. The reason, of course, is that the United States military is a finite entity. We cannot continue to send soldiers and equipment hither and yon to be killed or destroyed without replacing those killed or the equipment destroyed.Okay, I can do condescension. I understand Mahablog is throwing red meat to fever swamp left which is clearly Mahablog's intended audience. Sarcasm aside, what exactly is Mahablog saying? We have a finite number of people in the military. When those numbers drop due to attrition or (God forbid) death, those numbers need to be replaced. Mahablog seems to think this concept is over our heads. Mahablog needs to keep reading the righty blogosphere...
If you have 100 apples and you eat all of them, then you have no apples. This isn't rocket science.
Granted, a lot of the righties were confused by the Charles Rangel bill, since the point Congressman Rangel was trying to make went flying way over their heads. But I have yet to find a rightie who can honestly address the fact that, sooner or later, we're going to have to choose between scaling down our military involvements and reinstating the draft.
Our military is the best in the world. I don't think Mahablog is going to argue that point. The problem, such as it is (and it is a good problem to have), with our military is that we are the most technologically advanced military in the world; and because of that fact, military planners in the 90's decided that we could do with a smaller military. And in conventional warfare, we can, as the major combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan proved right handily. The problem is that we are now facing threats that are engaging in asymmetrical warfare which our "transformational military" wasn't prepared to fight (which is not to say they haven't learned "on the job" as it were).
So what does all this talk have to do with a draft? Well, we have a smaller military by design and now fighting a war wherein some think we need "more boots on the ground." I am not one of those. And even if I were, the last thing we would need is adraft to get them. You want more boots on the ground? Get the boots from Europe. Last I heard, the Soviet threat was pretty much over. All we're doing in Europe is giving them a free defense. The point of having forces deployed at bases throughout the world is so that when there is a conflict, forces can get there more quickly. It makes no sense to keep active troops in Europe when we are sending national guardsmen from home. Mahablog would have you believe that a draft is the only way to get the forces we need. It just isn't true. I'm going to give this one to the Democrats for free: you want to impress me? Stop wasting your breath on draft talk and start talking about moving troops out of Europe.
Our piece was written at a time when Democrats and fever swamp liberals were screaming that there was some sort of HALLIBURTON! scheme to get a draft instituted after the president got re-elected. They promised you, the American people, that it would happen. It hasn't. And clearly, the evidence points to Democrats as they are the only party recommending legislation for a draft. This brings us to Mahablog's jab about not understanding what Rangel was (and is) trying to do. Let me explain it in words that even the fever swamp liberals should be able to understand: Rangel would have you believe that our military is made up of volunteers who chose to serve their country not because of pride or a sense of duuty or patriotism, but rather because they needed a job. That is a slander of the vilest kind. (It doesn't rise to Durbin level, but it is up there.) In Rangel's World, the military is kind of a workfare program with guns. I'm not buying it, and neither should you.
At our current rate it may take us a couple of centuries to literally get down to An Army of One, but it will take a whole lot less time to so deplete our military that it puts the defense of our nation in jeopardy.Here we have the standard shifting of goalposts... We start with a discussion of the draft and who wants it and then move to recruitment and retention rates.
Democrats on the whole do not want a draft. Further, I do not believe BushCo wants a draft. They've said all along they don't plan to reinstate the draft, and I believe them; they don't plan to reinstate the draft. But these are guys who don't plan well.
We know that recruitment goals are not being met. Reenlistment rates for the Guard and Reserves are dropping procipitously. I believe the "regulars"--active duty Army--are reenlisting at an above-normal rate, which may slow the rate of depletion. But there is still depletion. And, unfortunately, there is still rightie denial. But let's go on ...
Let's take another look at this phrase: "Democrats on the whole do not want a draft." But clearly, Mahablog implies that SOME Democrats do want a draft. I submit that their names are: Charlie Rangel (D-New York), Jim McDermott (D-Washington), John Conyers (D-Michigan), John Lewis (D-Georgia), Pete Stark (D-California), Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) and Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina). Mahablog is correct in his analysis that the president, nor any Republican I know of, does not want a draft. Thank you for settling that issue...
If Mahablog wants to throw around the "putting the defense of the nation in jeapordy" rhetoric, the least Mahablog can do is offer a solution. As usual, lefties don't provide us a with any kind of vision or ideas. That's okay, let's go on...
Today Nick Kristof focuses on the economy--"A Glide Path to Ruin." He makes a good argument that the biggest threat to America's future is not Islamic terrorism, but Bush's fiscal recklessness.At this point, we take a radical shift out of military policy and move into economic theory...which makes some sense in the context of Mahablog's thesis: something about Repulicans think money (and soldiers too, apparently) grows on trees and there are no limits to anything. Which really isn't a subject I care to quibble about... I'm all for finding a fiscal conservative who will keep taxes low and stop the spending frenzy. Mahablog can let me know when he finds a Democrat who will really do that instead of just talk about it.
...
Bushie economic policy seems to be based on a belief in infinite wealth. As a result, we're being saddled with infinite debt. Plus, "three-fourths of our new debt is now being purchased by foreigners, with China the biggest buyer of all. That gives China leverage over us, and it undermines our national security," says Kristof. I posted some links regarding the Chinese buyout of America yesterday.
For that matter, what's up with corporate executives who continue to patch up their bottom lines by shorting the employees, but who assume there'll always be plenty of consumers with sufficient income to buy their products? Where do they think those consumers are going to come from? China?
I love that last paragraph. Those dumb, evil corporations...they keep shafting people in order to keep consumer prices low, but we can't talk about outsourcing in order to do it because that costs union jobs. And we sure can't talk about insourcing...those jobs from foreign companies investing in America don't count for anything. Nevermind that insourced jobs outpace outsourced jobs.
Of course, all of this is something of an aside...and we've moved off the topic of Mahablog's citation of us...but, we're on a roll...
Current Republican political strategy is based on the belief that the GOP will always be the majority party. Granted, they are pulling every string they can pull to make that belief come true. But nobody stays on top forever. Someday, if our republic survives as a republic, Republicans will be a minority party again. And then they're going to rediscover the value of the filibuster. Just watch.Show me a Republican who doesn't support the legislative filibuster. Unprecedented filibustering on nominees is not legislation. It is a Constitutional travesty...and I'll gladly say so IF the Republicans lose their majority and lose sight of their principles. Just watch.
Up next, a side trip in to the library:
Awhile back I read a chunk of Francis Fukuyama's The End of History. When I first plowed into it I was puzzled, because what Fukuyama wrote wasn't making sense. I wondered if he had some intellectual point too subtle and nuanced for me to grasp. And then I realized, with growing horror, that Fukuyama believes literally in an end of history. "Liberal democracy" (by which I infer Fukuyama means something neither "liberal" nor "democratic" as most of us might understand those words) is the final destination of mankind's political evolution, he says, and once mankind has universally achieved this state, history (meaning wars and other political upheavals) will end.Okay, righties...raise your hands if you know who Francis Fukuyama is... I'm waiting... Yeah, I never heard of him either. He's on the president's bioethics commission, but that doesn't make him a shining example of "righty smarts." You gotta love the fact that the link Mahablog provides takes you to Marxists.org...sounds like a righty to me, Maha...and if you are accurately portraying his views, I seem to recall lefties being the ones talking about Utopias with chocolate rivers and gumdrop dreams...but your mileage may vary...
This is what passes for "smarts" among the righties.
No wonder they can stomp on, twist around, and subvert our political processes to suit their ideological ends without worrying about the damage they are doing. They believe "liberal democracy" is immutable. It just always is, like water and money. Subvert it, break it, bend it out of shape, and it'll just snap back, good as new.
Is your hair on fire yet?Yeah, but only because I looked pretty hard for a point in this diatribe and found none. Perhaps Mahablog is just too nuanced for my tastes...
