Hundreds of thousands of Americans in Iraq would surely control the place to a greater extent - this would mean drafting and training civilians.
2007-03-28 06:40:48 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Jase - Well, good point. But America wants to win in Iraq doesn't it? You can't win a war without casualties....
2007-03-28 06:45:04 · update #1
Pfo - see my response to Jase.
2007-03-28 06:46:08 · update #2
I would also add that the military generally don't have enough troops in many areas - so they suffer. So we can avoid the unpleasantness of civil unrest and the like - meanwhile under-resourced soldiers are dying. You can't win a war without enough soldiers. If you aren't prepared to call up your civilian population, maybe the war isn't worth fighting?
2007-03-28 06:48:41 · update #3
Kilroy - even better. Send 1 million soldiers. Send another 1 million enlisted men. = 2 million US troops. How could they lose?
2007-03-28 06:50:45 · update #4
Of course it would but here we go with that good ole republican logic again...Nooo you see, if we call up a draft to fight the biggest fight since WWII, then that will corrupt our soldiers with non pure soldiers who are conscripts and then our soldiers will lose the will to fight and they all will die like the storm troopers did at the end of return of the Jedi. So noooo, we have to keep fighting in a diminshed capacity, this way we're gauranteed to win.
What's wrong Mike, you afraid to fight for your country again. I thought you had a little more spine than that.
2007-03-28 06:59:46 · answer #1 · answered by huckleberry1 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
A draft wouldn't help.
It would take about 2 years to train any new Divisions after a draft started.
Plus it would lower the quality of current Divisions as experienced Officers and NCO's were taken from those units to form the cadre for the new Divisions.
Most people get fixated on it only taking several months for a soldier to go thru boot and AIT.
They don't think about how long it takes to train the fire team leaders, squad leaders, platoon sgt's, platoon leaders, company commanders.
Plus the time it takes to get all the people assigned to a new Division to act and be able to fight as a coherent unit.
2007-03-28 06:58:30 · answer #2 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe, but there are problems with a draft. Namely, that many who are drafted are not warriors and don't want to participate in a war. A draft would bring on civil unrest and riots like the 1960's. No one wants that again, not the people, not the military, not the country. Case closed.
2007-03-28 06:44:09 · answer #3 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The US could put hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq without a draft. The Army alone has 1,000,000 soldiers and only 120,000 in Iraq. It just demonstrates how we are trying to fight this thing with only one hand. It would be unpopular to deploy a bulk of the Army, but putting a half million soldiers in Iraq would make a difference.
2007-03-28 06:47:51 · answer #4 · answered by Kilroy 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, the surge only calls for an additional 21 thousand troops. Our military has that capacity right now. So I think a draft would be pointless. Plus to think about all the extra tax dollars we would have to pay to house and feed and all those that were drafted and are sitting on their butts doing nothing. A draft is definitely not necessary right now.
2007-03-28 06:50:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is no need for a draft in this war.
And as long as we have a Republican president I am not worried about a draft. If you pay close attention you will notice that it is always the Democrats who keep talking about a draft.
Personally - I regard all the draft talk as nothing but scare tactics.
2007-03-28 07:22:43 · answer #6 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ask the Vietnamese for the answer,what you have got now is a guerrilla war,volume of troops would make no difference only more body bags this is going to be a long haul
2007-03-28 06:50:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i wouldn't say reinstate the draft, but definatly less than what is needed is being used as a surge. it's not even looking like a surge, but a tiny drop in the bucket. if we want to win this war, we will need more troops in the surge than ordered. much more.
2007-03-28 06:48:32 · answer #8 · answered by Iris 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The war is unpopular enough as is, if you reinstate the draft - Vietnam is going to look like a nice casual gathering of friends.
2007-03-28 06:43:43 · answer #9 · answered by Jase 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the surge would be more effective if dumb people like you would shut up. the draft won't do anything but put people who don't ant to be there next to people who do and you will have more dead troops then. Arlington is already almost full, you wanting to speed that along or something?
2007-03-28 06:57:52 · answer #10 · answered by Dave 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋