Feel that Draft?

[Raiders Army]

Link

Feel that draft?

By Charles Moskos
Published June 8, 2005

Recruitment for the U.S. Army and Marine Corps is on the brink of disaster. Indeed, along with combat, recruiting duty is now considered the worst mission in the military. Although we are in a global war against terrorism, the American citizenry is not being asked for any sacrifice. In the last election, both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) were united in their refusal to consider a return to conscription. "Patriotism-lite" is the order of the day.

But truth to tell, a draft for the 21st Century is the only answer to our national security needs. Such a draft would have three tiers of youth service, with 18-month tours of duty for citizens ages 18 to 25. The first tier would be modeled after a standard military draft. The second tier would be for homeland security, such as guarding our borders, ports, nuclear installations and chemical plants. Included in this category would be police officers, firefighters, air marshals and disaster medical technicians. The third tier would be for civilian national service, such as the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, Habitat for Humanity, Teach for America, assistance for the elderly and infirm, environmental work and the like. Women should be draft-eligible for the latter two categories and, of course, can volunteer for military service as now.

In return, all draftees, as well as voluntary servers, would receive generous financial aid for college and graduate school modeled after the GI Bill of World War II. Non-servers would be ineligible for federal student aid. Today more than $20 billion annually in federal funds is given to students who do not serve their country. We have created a GI Bill of Rights without the "GI."

Any conscription system must start at the top of the social ladder to have widespread public acceptance. During World War II and the Cold War, privileged youths were conscripted at a higher rate than youths from the lower socio-economic levels. (My draftee contemporary was Elvis Presley!) This was not true in the Vietnam War draft or in today's all-volunteer force. That only a handful of those in Congress have children in the military speaks directly to the inequity of military service today.

Three major arguments are raised against conscription. These are given below with rejoinders.

1. Short enlistments would increase demands on the training base. Let us remember that almost one-third of our service entrants now fail to complete their initial enlistments. This contrasts with a 10 percent dropout rate for draftees in the Cold War. Completion of an enlistment term is strongly correlated with higher education. It's much better to have a soldier serve a short draft tour honorably than be prematurely discharged. Conscription would both reduce personnel turnover and counter shortfalls in end strength.

2. The modern military requires highly technical skills that cannot be met by short-termers. Precisely. Higher compensation should be aimed at those whose skills require extended training and experience. In the draft era, the pay ratio between a senior non-commissioned officer and a private was six to one; today it is three to one. We now have overpaid recruits and underpaid sergeants.

3. Volunteers make better soldiers than those who are conscripted to serve. Item: in World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, draftees had lower desertion and AWOL rates than volunteers. Item: Surveys of veterans find that draftees have a more favorable opinion of their military experience than do volunteers.

Also in the news:

Officials said yesterday that although the Army would not release its numbers until tomorrow, the service fell about 25 percent short of its target of signing up 6,700 recruits in May. The gap would have been wider if an earlier target had not been lowered by 1,350.

The Army National Guard and Army Reserve are even further behind in recruiting this year.

Thoughts?

[JPhillips]

Did anyone read the bizarre story of the recruiters who basically kidnapped a kid to get him to commit?

[Crapshoot]

A draft would be an unrequited political disaster- I simply cannot see any party being willing to take that particular beast on. Its a fear without any real basis.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Did anyone read the bizarre story of the recruiters who basically kidnapped a kid to get him to commit?

It just illustrates the pressure the recruiters are under to get bodies into the system. There are many other stories out there as well about recruiters...a lot of that is coming from the top down.

[flere-imsaho]

Link

When Marine recruiters go way beyond the call

For mom Marcia Cobb and her teenage son Axel, the white letters USMC on their caller ID soon spelled, "Don't answer the phone!"

Marine recruiters began a relentless barrage of calls to Axel as soon as the mellow, compliant Sedro-Woolley High School grad had cut his 17th birthday cake. And soon it was nearly impossible to get the seekers of a few good men off the line.

With early and late calls ringing in their ears, Marcia tried using call blocking. And that's when she learned her first hard lesson. You can't block calls from the government, her server said. So, after pleas to "Please stop calling" went unanswered, the family's "do not answer" order ensued.

But warnings and liquid crystal lettering can fade. So, two weeks ago when Marcia was cooking dinner Axel goofed and answered the call. And, faster than you can say "semper fi," an odyssey kicked into action that illustrates just how desperate some of the recruiters we've read about really are to fill severely sagging quotas.

Let what we learned serve as a warning to other moms, dads and teens, the Cobbs now say. Even if your kids actually may want to join the military, if they hope to do it on their own terms, after a deep breath and due consideration, repeat these words after them: "No," "Not now" and "Back off!"

"I've been trained to be pretty friendly. I guess you might even say I'm kind of passive," Axel told me last week, just after his mother and older sister had tracked him to a Seattle testing center and sprung him on a ruse.

The next step of Axel's misadventure came when he heard about a cool "chin-ups" contest in Bellingham, where the prize was a free Xbox. The now 18-year-old Skagit Valley Community College student dragged his tail feathers home uncharacteristically late that night. And, in the morning, Marcia learned the Marines had hosted the event and "then had him out all night, drilling him to join."

A single mom with a meager income, Marcia raised her kids on the farm where, until recently, she grew salad greens for restaurants.

Axel's father, a Marine Corps vet who served in Vietnam, died when Axel was 4.

Clearly the recruiters knew all that and more.

"You don't want to be a burden to your mom," they told him. "Be a man." "Make your father proud." Never mind that, because of his own experience in the service, Marcia says enlistment for his son is the last thing Axel's dad would have wanted.

The next weekend, when Marcia went to Seattle for the Folklife Festival and Axel was home alone, two recruiters showed up at the door.

Axel repeated the family mantra, but he was feeling frazzled and worn down by then. The sergeant was friendly but, at the same time, aggressively insistent. This time, when Axel said, "Not interested," the sarge turned surly, snapping, "You're making a big (bleeping) mistake!"

Next thing Axel knew, the same sergeant and another recruiter showed up at the LaConner Brewing Co., the restaurant where Axel works. And before Axel, an older cousin and other co-workers knew or understood what was happening, Axel was whisked away in a car.

"They said we were going somewhere but I didn't know we were going all the way to Seattle," Axel said.

Just a few tests. And so many free opportunities, the recruiters told him.

He could pursue his love of chemistry. He could serve anywhere he chose and leave any time he wanted on an "apathy discharge" if he didn't like it. And he wouldn't have to go to Iraq if he didn't want to.

At about 3:30 in the morning, Alex was awakened in the motel and fed a little something. Twelve hours later, without further sleep or food, he had taken a battery of tests and signed a lot of papers he hadn't gotten a chance to read. "Just formalities," he was told. "Sign here. And here. Nothing to worry about."

By then Marcia had "freaked out."

She went to the Burlington recruiting center where the door was open but no one was home. So she grabbed all the cards and numbers she could find, including the address of the Seattle-area testing center.

Then, with her grown daughter in tow, she high-tailed it south, frantically phoning Axel whose cell phone had been confiscated "so he wouldn't be distracted during tests."

Axel's grandfather was in the hospital dying, she told the people at the desk. He needed to come home right away. She would have said just about anything.

But, even after being told her son would be brought right out, her daughter spied him being taken down a separate hall and into another room. So she dashed down the hall and grabbed him by the arm.

"They were telling me I needed to 'be a man' and stand up to my family," Axel said.

What he needed, it turned out, was a lawyer.

Five minutes and $250 after an attorney called the recruiters, Axel's signed papers and his cell phone were in the mail.

My request to speak with the sergeant who recruited Axel and with the Burlington office about recruitment procedures went unanswered.

And so should your phone, Marcia Cobb advised. Take your own sweet time. Keep your own counsel. And, if you see USMC on caller ID, remember what answering the call could mean.

[hhiipp]

Hmm, we're engaged in a somewhat questionable and controversial war with no real end in sight and the recruitment numbers for all branches of the military are down??? Shocker!

[st.cronin]

Ask the joint chiefs if they want a draft - they'll say no, and it would be weird to have one when they don't want one.

I'm not opposed to a system like Israel has, where every citizen participates in the common defense if able - the trouble is, it would be hell to implement in this country just as a practical matter, never mind the politics.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

A draft would be an unrequited political disaster- I simply cannot see any party being willing to take that particular beast on. Its a fear without any real basis.

The only other choice is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. How long do you think the all-volunteer military will last at this rate?

Illustrated below:

The number of active-duty soldiers getting divorced has been rising sharply with deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The trend is severest among officers. Last year, 3,325 Army officers' marriages ended in divorce — up 78% from 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion, and more than 3 1/2 times the number in 2000, before the Afghan operation, Army figures show. For enlisted personnel, the 7,152 divorces last year were 28% more than in 2003 and up 53% from 2000. During that time, the number of soldiers has changed little.

The Army has no comparable data for past wars.

The stress of combat, long separations and difficulty readjusting to family life are key reasons for the surge, Army officials say.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Ask the joint chiefs if they want a draft - they'll say no, and it would be weird to have one when they don't want one.

I agree, but there's a difference between what you want and what you need.

[albionmoonlight]

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...ad.php?t=31962

There was a decent discussion of this general topic in this thread.

[weinstein7]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

A draft would be an unrequited political disaster- I simply cannot see any party being willing to take that particular beast on. Its a fear without any real basis.

I don't think that's necessarily true. If it happened today, then yes....but if members of both parties were actually responsible politicians and leveled with the people.....well, I'm just talking crazy now.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

The only other choice is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. How long do you think the all-volunteer military will last at this rate?

Plus, the Army's own statistics show that experiences officers are leaving (if they can) at an amazing rate. Many compare it to what happened to the Armed Forces after Vietnam. Basically, everyone good with experience left, and the Armed Forces were "broken" for years. Bush & Rumsfeld are doing the same thing to today's Army.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

The only other choice is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. How long do you think the all-volunteer military will last at this rate?

Illustrated below:

Hey, do you see a political party that's willing to completely abandon the 18-25 vote (limited as it is) ? The Democrats sure as hell won't do it, and neither will the Republicans, because those kids' parents don't want their son/daughter in Iraq either. Admittedly, some can argue that this is putting the "Citizen" in citizenship, and the Israeli system is interesting - I just don't see it as being viable.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...ad.php?t=31962

There was a decent discussion of this general topic in this thread.

True, but that was back before the Army recruiters missed their goals four months in a row and will probably not meet their FY goal.

Also, I was lazy about looking for it.

[albionmoonlight]

We are a people used to politicians telling us that shopping in New York is the best way to help America.

I don't think that you could convince the majority of us to ration for the sake of our freedom, let alone die for it. Sacrifice is a dirty word in America.

I hope that I am wrong, but I am not really all that impressed with the willingness to sacrifice that I see in myself or many of those around me. I work to improve myself, but it is a struggle.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Hey, do you see a political party that's willing to completely abandon the 18-25 vote (limited as it is) ? The Democrats sure as hell won't do it, and neither will the Republicans, because those kids' parents don't want their son/daughter in Iraq either. Admittedly, some can argue that this is putting the "Citizen" in citizenship, and the Israeli system is interesting - I just don't see it as being viable.

Do I see a party that's willing to abandon the 18-25 vote? No. But this is when the irresistable force meets the immovable object. Something has to give. Do you see us pulling out of Iraq and Afhganistan?

[JPhillips]

Whether or not we move to a draft, we need to have an honest discussion of the effects of our policies on the military. The recruitment problems, the stop-loss orders, the guard/reserve deployments are all problems we need to deal with.

I've said it before, but the inability/refusal of this admin to honestly discuss the costs of our foriegn policy decisions is one of the greatest threats to winning the war on terror.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Do I see a party that's willing to abandon the 18-25 vote? No. But this is when the irresistable force meets the immovable object. Something has to give. Do you see us pulling out of Iraq and Afhganistan?

Actually, I see a transfer of forces from Korea towards those problems, as well as forces in Saudi Arabia. And I do forsee a withdrawal of sorts.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I've said it before, but the inability/refusal of this admin to honestly discuss the costs of our foriegn policy decisions is one of the greatest threats to winning the war on terror.

I agree, but to keep this from sounding too political--the Democrats have been just as dishonest about the sacrifices that it really takes to defend freedom. Kerry was not running on a "this is gonna hurt" platform.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Actually, I see a transfer of forces from Korea towards those problems, as well as forces in Saudi Arabia. And I do forsee a withdrawal of sorts.

One of the secondary (or tertiary) strategic purpose's behind the invasion of Iraq was that it would allow us to close the bases in Saudi Arabia, defusing one of Islam's major beefs with the US.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I've said it before, but the inability/refusal of this admin to honestly discuss the costs of our foriegn policy decisions is one of the greatest threats to winning the war on terror.

I agree with your statement with the exception of the last part. I don't think we can ever win the war on terror.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Actually, I see a transfer of forces from Korea towards those problems, as well as forces in Saudi Arabia. And I do forsee a withdrawal of sorts.

Saudi. Check.

Korea. Not so sure. Depends on what happens with North Korea. Do you see that situation de-escalating?

[JPhillips]

Albion: I'll give you that. Only McCain and Biden have really spent much time talking about our lack of sacrifice. We're breaking the military and bankrupting the country because nobody has the balls to point out the truth, we can't have this foriegn policy without sacrifice.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

One of the secondary (or tertiary) strategic purpose's behind the invasion of Iraq was that it would allow us to close the bases in Saudi Arabia, defusing one of Islam's major beefs with the US.

I've never understood this. Arabs are going to be happier with the U.S. presence moving to Iraq from Saudi Arabia? I mean, it's not as if we've been camped in Mecca.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I've never understood this. Arabs are going to be happier with the U.S. presence moving to Iraq from Saudi Arabia? I mean, it's not as if we've been camped in Mecca.

Well, not that logic is the strong suit of bin-Laden or his Arab apologists, but when they repeatedly tell you over a period of years that the main reason for their rage is US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia (not Turkey or Kuwait) ... I guess it makes sense to at least try to do something about that.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well, not that logic is the strong suit of bin-Laden or his Arab apologists, but when they repeatedly tell you over a period of years that the main reason for their rage is US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia (not Turkey or Kuwait) ... I guess it makes sense to at least try to do something about that.

I'm not addressing the logic or lack thereof of bin-Laden. My point, in saying that "it's not like we're camped in Mecca" is that these guys are going to hate us no matter where we're stationed in the Middle East. It's not as if we can say "well, we are camped in Mecca, so being able to move out of there should make Muslims a lot happier."

The problem, I feel, is that it's shortsighted to think that we're going to make fundamentalist Islamic Arabs any happier just by moving out of Saudi Arabia, while we continue to keep a presence in the region. So, if it was a "secondary, or tertiary goal" of the invasion, it wasn't a particularly well thought out one.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I don't think we can ever win the war on terror.

This is absolutely true. Terrorism isn't the enemy, it is a tactic the enemy uses. You cannot wipeout a tactic. In WW2, we didn't defeat blitzkreig, did we? We defeated those who used the tactic. A very large difference, that is more than just semantics.

[GroundCat]

I thought this was going to be about the NFL draft.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm not addressing the logic or lack thereof of bin-Laden. My point, in saying that "it's not like we're camped in Mecca" is that these guys are going to hate us no matter where we're stationed in the Middle East. It's not as if we can say "well, we are camped in Mecca, so being able to move out of there should make Muslims a lot happier."

The problem, I feel, is that it's shortsighted to think that we're going to make fundamentalist Islamic Arabs any happier just by moving out of Saudi Arabia, while we continue to keep a presence in the region. So, if it was a "secondary, or tertiary goal" of the invasion, it wasn't a particularly well thought out one.

I don't think it factored much in the decision to invade Iraq. I think it was more along the lines of they had been trying to figure out a better place to put the troops for years, and when the possibility of invading Iraq was discussed, it was put in the 'plus' column. I, personally, have been arguing for years that it was stupid to have bases in Arabia. If you've ever talked to even a moderate Islamist it becomes clear how painful the presence of those bases is.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Hey, do you see a political party that's willing to completely abandon the 18-25 vote (limited as it is) ? The Democrats sure as hell won't do it, and neither will the Republicans, because those kids' parents don't want their son/daughter in Iraq either. Admittedly, some can argue that this is putting the "Citizen" in citizenship, and the Israeli system is interesting - I just don't see it as being viable.

You know in a lot of ways I don't see this as an abandonment of that vote. There are a ton of very educated people in that 18-25 range extraordinarily unhappy with their job prospects and opportunities. Teach For America turns away a huge number of kids from great schools simply because they don't have the support structure to handle the surge in applications they've gotten in the last couple years. In some ways No Child Left Behind hampers smart kids just out of school that want to make a difference because it places a real burden on them to do something like teach for a few years (basically certification requirements would force someone into a night-school master's degree program, on top. If the government instituted something like this three-tiered system, and sold it even half-way well, they would have a ton of takers. Calling it a "draft" has too many evil connotations, but a civil service requirement (I honestly think if the government focused on simply supporting and actively expanding these programs, that the mandatory nature of things wouldn't be entirely necessary).

But then there's still the issue of a shortage of combat operations military personnel... and I don't know quite what to do about that. (Which is really all that matters on this issue.)

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I don't think that you could convince the majority of us to ration for the sake of our freedom, let alone die for it. Sacrifice is a dirty word in America.

I think Americans are always willing to answer the call when their 'freedom' is on the line (on the line from a foreign power, anyway). It's diversions like Vietnam and Iraq that people aren't too keen on dying for, and I can't say that I blame them.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Link



Also in the news:



Thoughts?

I think they messed up their resource projections and that's why they're in this boat now. I tried to apply to the USMC officer candidate program back in 2002 and they had one ground slot available for the entire western region and it had already been filled.

Now that we're knee deep in the middle of a war, it's obviously going to be exponentionally harder to attract qualified people. Maybe we should outsource to India.

[Blackadar]

I don't even mind the Israeli system...AS LONG as they return the power to make "war" back to Congress. Meaning that sending troops to any overseas conflict - UN Peacekeeping Missions, the Iraq "Campaign", etc. - MUST be voted on as "war" as declared by Congress. As it stands, there's too little accountability when troops are put in harms' way.

[MrBigglesworth]

Double post

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm not addressing the logic or lack thereof of bin-Laden. My point, in saying that "it's not like we're camped in Mecca" is that these guys are going to hate us no matter where we're stationed in the Middle East. It's not as if we can say "well, we are camped in Mecca, so being able to move out of there should make Muslims a lot happier."

The problem, I feel, is that it's shortsighted to think that we're going to make fundamentalist Islamic Arabs any happier just by moving out of Saudi Arabia, while we continue to keep a presence in the region. So, if it was a "secondary, or tertiary goal" of the invasion, it wasn't a particularly well thought out one.

Sadly, the logic (or lack-thereof) of bin-Laden's mind didn't matter as much as the fact that the Al-Qaeda had a very easy time recruiting Saudi's when they said "infidels were occupying" the land of the two holy cities (mecca and medina).

But regardless, the biggest difference between Saudi Arabia and Iraq is that when we were in Saudi Arabia, the only exit strategy ws regime change in Iraq. So we really weren't going anywhere when we maintained the status quo. At least now we can remove a majority of our forces once the terror-insurgency goes away.

And when Iraq is a stable democracy, it's harder to sell the oppressive monarchy routine either that Saudi disidents used for why the American presence was their. Now the people in Iraq can vote on it.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

At least now we can remove a majority of our forces once the terror-insurgency goes away.

That'll be what? 2030?

And when Iraq is a stable democracy, it's harder to sell the oppressive monarchy routine either that Saudi disidents used for why the American presence was their. Now the people in Iraq can vote on it.

By "stable democracy" I assume you mean "Shiite Dictatorial Theocracy with a Kurdish Splinter State".

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

At least now we can remove a majority of our forces once the terror-insurgency goes away.

According to this:

hxxp://www.defense.gov/news/Apr2000/n04102000_20004101.html

There were 4,000 service members in Saudi Arabia in 2000. In what year do you project that there will be lower than 4k service members in Saudi Arabia/Iraq?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

According to this:

hxxp://www.defense.gov/news/Apr2000/n04102000_20004101.html

There were 4,000 service members in Saudi Arabia in 2000. In what year do you project that there will be lower than 4k service members in Saudi Arabia/Iraq?

The forces in Saudi Arabia, no matter the #, were an issue. Troops in Kuwait, Turkey and Egypt didn't draw the same complaints. 400,000 troops in Iraq would be better than 1,000 troops in Saudi Arabia.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The forces in Saudi Arabia, no matter the #, were an issue. Troops in Kuwait, Turkey and Egypt didn't draw the same complaints. 400,000 troops in Iraq would be better than 1,000 troops in Saudi Arabia.

Dutch's apparent point though was that because we invaded Iraq, we can bring some of those troops home now. I was just wondering when it was that we could afford to have less than 4k servicemen in Iraq.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The forces in Saudi Arabia, no matter the #, were an issue. Troops in Kuwait, Turkey and Egypt didn't draw the same complaints. 400,000 troops in Iraq would be better than 1,000 troops in Saudi Arabia.

Do you really think the problem goes away if our troops are gone? These people (Islamic fundamentalists) are much more threatened by the cultural invasions caused by globalization than by the actual troops. They may use the troops as an excuse, but they're not the motivation for the hatred.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

Do you really think the problem goes away if our troops are gone? These people (Islamic fundamentalists) are much more threatened by the cultural invasions caused by globalization than by the actual troops. They may use the troops as an excuse, but they're not the motivation for the hatred.

For example....

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

Do you really think the problem goes away if our troops are gone? These people (Islamic fundamentalists) are much more threatened by the cultural invasions caused by globalization than by the actual troops. They may use the troops as an excuse, but they're not the motivation for the hatred.

I agree with you, but the troops in Saudi Arabia in fact trouble ALL Muslims, including moderate and even some liberal ones. There's no reason to keep them there unless we absolutely have to. Also, you take away a lot of whatever traction al-Qaeda et al. has with mainstream Islam by answering their loudest complaint.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I agree with you, but the troops in Saudi Arabia in fact trouble ALL Muslims, including moderate and even some liberal ones. There's no reason to keep them there unless we absolutely have to. Also, you take away a lot of whatever traction al-Qaeda et al. has with mainstream Islam by answering their loudest complaint.

Exactly. This article further describes the logic.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/ne...430-psab01.htm

[judicial clerk]

By "stable democracy" I assume you mean "Shiite Dictatorial Theocracy with a Kurdish Splinter State".

don't forget about near constant low-level border conflicts between Turkey and said splinter state along with subversive insurgents from Iran and, to a lesser degree, Syria.

[flere-imsaho]

You guys have to be kidding me if you expect me to believe that moving troops out of Saudi Arabia, given what we've wrought in Iraq, is going to have anything but an infinitesimal impact on Islamo-American relations.

It's like the Domino Theory, all over again. Wishful thinking, writ large.

[RainRaven]

The U.S ignored the middle east for too long in the past and it will take more then pulling troops out of Saudi Arabia to fix it. A draft would be politicaly suicide for anyone because eitheir side will pounce on it quickly for political captial. What we need for our foreign policy is a clear concise plan. Right now we have none that I can see. In Vietnam we did't have a plan and instead flew by the seat of our pants. In Iraq too many factors are at play and we are stretched too thin to cover ourselves everywhere. North Korea sits their in diplomatic talk limbo with possible nuclear weapons. China is the 800 pound gorilla in the room licking it's chops over Tiawan and who know's if Bush would cover their asses if push came to shove let alone if the American people would make the commitment to them.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You guys have to be kidding me if you expect me to believe that moving troops out of Saudi Arabia, given what we've wrought in Iraq, is going to have anything but an infinitesimal impact on Islamo-American relations.

It's like the Domino Theory, all over again. Wishful thinking, writ large.

We weren't going to leave Saudi Arabia without first having accomplished regime change in Iraq, no other reason.

So, we (US/UK/Australia) are sitting there, maintaining the status quo (politically) with regards to Iraq. Meanwhile, Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are drumming up all sorts of business and fueling the anger towards the USA (during the 90's).

I was in Saudi Arabia in 1992. I walked freely around Riyadh and held conversations with plenty of Saudi's, Yemeni's, and Egyptians, among others. Americans were accepted warmly and almost vigorously mostly because we saved their asses from Saddam Hussein, but also because of our "respect" to Arab customs, courtesies, and culture.

I was again in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Things had changed dramatically. The US Army liaison office was bombed while I was there and Khobar Towers was struck just after I left. Saudi men stared angerly towards me. We weren't allowed to travel around town anymore because of security risks, either.

But what had changed so dramatically?

I believe it was the Al Qeada constant push with their inflamatory rhetoric and bombing campaign that was the single biggest contributor to the turning of the tide with regard to the average Muslims opinion of the USA.

It's a sort of pychological war. If you say the same things over and over again, kind of like how if we push the "Mission Accomplished" banner as Bush declaring the end of the Iraq insurgency instead of it's true meaning of Iraq regime change people will start to believe it.

Many people--especially young Saudi's--but not limited to the youth, truly believed in 1996 that the USA was the evil in the region, and many even began to look at Saddam Hussein as this iconistic figure that stood up to the USA. That was simply not the case in 1992. And that's how you get recruits in a hard-coded Muslim society. And there isn't anybody in their media to tell them otherwise. To go against the fundamentally extreme view-points in the middle east is to lead a miserable existance. Al Qaeda is very much like the Italian/American mob of yesteryear.

But you're right Flere. Moving troops out of Saudi Arabia wouldn't do anything in and of itself. Hell, if we had just packed up and left and called it a day, it would surely have encouraged more terror bombings for whatever else the terrorists wanted.

As a matter of belief, no single one thing the USA or UK or Spain or France does in this effort will be the silver bullet in the heart of Al Qeada. It will take a long time for this effort to come to fruitation. And while I agree that this is a nasty, ugly, terrible road to be on, we didn't have any other choice. And before you bash me for saying that, I understand 100% that that is my opinion of the situation and not a belief that is pure fact.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

As a matter of belief, no single one thing the USA or UK or Spain or France does in this effort will be the silver bullet in the heart of Al Qeada. It will take a long time for this effort to come to fruitation. And while I agree that this is a nasty, ugly, terrible road to be on, we didn't have any other choice. And before you bash me for saying that, I understand 100% that that is my opinion of the situation and not a belief that is pure fact.

Fair enough. And, as you know, it is my opinion that you are utterly wrong.

I think it's not correct to think that now that we've removed Saddam from power, another figure won't appear to be that "iconoclastic figure" to inspire militant youths to war and death. Even now, they have bin Laden, Al-Zarquai, and Al-Sadr for "inspiration". If the leaders of Syria and Iran continue to thumb their noses at the West, they'll have them as well. And given our overextended commitment in Iraq, our fracturing Armed Forces, and the emerging threats from China & North Korea, they'll thumb their noses with impunity, knowing there is precious little we can do about it.

I call that "looking at the big picture".

[Chubby]

I'm just glad that we have found Osama and that getting Saddam out of power fixed everything...

[ISiddiqui]

Non-servers would be ineligible for federal student aid.

What a dumb idea. Yeah, so we only value your education if you decide to hand over your liberty to us. Be our army slaves or break the bank to get an education.