This is why we need the Draft!
This was sent to me courtesy of Mil.com.http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,146498,00.html?ESRC=army.nl
Army's Fighting Force Nearly Exhausted
Associated Press | August 20, 2007
WASHINGTON - Sapped by nearly six years of war, the Army has nearly exhausted its fighting force and its options if the Bush administration decides to extend the Iraq buildup beyond next spring.
The Army's 38 available combat units are deployed, just returning home or already tapped to go to Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, leaving no fresh troops to replace five extra brigades that President Bush sent to Baghdad this year, according to interviews and military documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
That presents the Pentagon with several painful choices if the U.S. wants to maintain higher troop levels beyond the spring of 2008:
-Using National Guard units on an accelerated schedule.
-Breaking the military's pledge to keep Soldiers in Iraq for no longer than 15 months.
-Breaching a commitment to give Soldiers a full year at home before sending them back to war.
For a war-fatigued nation and a Congress bent on bringing troops home, none of those is desirable.
In Iraq, there are 18 Army brigades, each with about 3,500 Soldiers. At least 13 more brigades are scheduled to rotate in. Two others are in Afghanistan and two additional ones are set to rotate in there. Also, several other brigades either are set for a future deployment or are scattered around the globe.
Military.com's Deployment Center
The few units that are not at war, in transformation or in their 12-months home time already are penciled in for deployments later in 2008 or into 2009. Shifting them would create problems in the long-term schedule.
Most Army brigades have completed two or three tours in Iraq or Afghanistan; some assignments have lasted as long as 15 months. The 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, has done four tours.
Two Marine regiments - each roughly the same size as an Army brigade - also in Iraq,- bringing the total number of brigades in the country to 20.
When asked what units will fill the void in the coming spring if any need to be replaced, officials give a grim shake of the head, shrug of the shoulders or a palms-up, empty-handed gesture.
"The demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply," the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, said last week. "Right now we have in place deployment and mobilization policies that allow us to meet the current demands. If the demands don't go down over time, it will become increasingly difficult for us to provide the trained and ready forces" for other missions.
Casey said he would not be comfortable extending troops beyond their 15-month deployments. But other military officials acknowledge privately that option is on the table.
Pentagon leaders hope there is enough progress in Iraq to allow them to scale back at least part of the nearly 30,000-strong buildup when Soldiers begin leaving Iraq around March and April.
There are 162,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now, the highest level since the war began in 2003. That figure is expected to hit 171,000 this fall as fresh troops rotate in.
Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq who will deliver a much anticipated progress report to Congress in September, said Wednesday he is considering possible troop cuts and believes the U.S. will have fewer forces in Iraq by next summer.
Other commanders have said the security situation is improving, which would allow U.S. troops to be shifted from combat and lead to an eventual force reduction.
Still, Petraeus and other military leaders have warned against drawing down too quickly. In fact, an upbeat progress report in September may solidify arguments that additional troops should stay longer to ensure that positive changes stick.
"The longer that you keep American forces there, the longer you give this process to solidify and to make sure that it's not going to slide back," said Frederick Kagan, an American Enterprise Institute analyst who recently returned from an eight-day visit to Iraq. "The sooner you take them out, the more you run the risk that enemies will come in and try to disrupt."
Kagan, a leading supporter of the current buildup strategy, said any decision to maintain force levels would have to take into account the effects on the Army. That would include, he said, the strains of sending Guard units back to Iraq more rapidly than Pentagon policy allows or keeping active duty units there longer than 15 months.
"You have the same tradeoff at every moment in this process, which is the institutional well-being of the Army versus what is felt is necessary to win the war," Kagan said.
According to military officials, some Soldiers in Iraq are hearing that it may not be wise to pack their bags to come home when their 15-month tour is up. But to date, Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have said they have no plans to extend those tours.
National Guard officials are bracing for a new round of Guard deployments and a move to decrease their time at home between tours - despite announced plans to give the citizen Soldiers five years off for every one year served.
One Guard official said this past week that the Army is pushing to give Guard units four years or less at home in order to get access to those combat brigades sooner.
Last April the Pentagon notified National Guard brigades in four states that they should be prepared to deploy to Iraq later this year. But documents obtained by the AP show that Guard units in five states - Indiana, Arkansas, Ohio, Oklahoma and Minnesota - are scheduled to deploy to Iraq before the end of the year. A New York Guard unit is set to go to Afghanistan.
The shortage of combat units will be remedied over time. The Pentagon slowly is increasing the size of the active-duty Army by 65,000 members to 547,000 by 2012. The 38 combat brigades currently available for war will expand to 48 by 2013.
The Iraqis hold the key to any U.S. withdrawals. The government in Baghdad has made little progress on political changes the Pentagon says are critical to restoring stability to the country, thus allowing U.S. troops to begin leaving.
If progress is not made and the violence does not abate, the Pentagon will turn again to the Army.
"The Army will do what's necessary and will pay a very high price if necessary," said Kagan. "but I'm hopeful that it won't come to that and I honestly don't think that it will."
This is why I think we need the draft. The National Guard and Reserves are already pushed to their brink as well. It would do alot of good for our younger people too, to have to serve.
Army's Fighting Force Nearly Exhausted
Associated Press | August 20, 2007
WASHINGTON - Sapped by nearly six years of war, the Army has nearly exhausted its fighting force and its options if the Bush administration decides to extend the Iraq buildup beyond next spring.
The Army's 38 available combat units are deployed, just returning home or already tapped to go to Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere, leaving no fresh troops to replace five extra brigades that President Bush sent to Baghdad this year, according to interviews and military documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
That presents the Pentagon with several painful choices if the U.S. wants to maintain higher troop levels beyond the spring of 2008:
-Using National Guard units on an accelerated schedule.
-Breaking the military's pledge to keep Soldiers in Iraq for no longer than 15 months.
-Breaching a commitment to give Soldiers a full year at home before sending them back to war.
For a war-fatigued nation and a Congress bent on bringing troops home, none of those is desirable.
In Iraq, there are 18 Army brigades, each with about 3,500 Soldiers. At least 13 more brigades are scheduled to rotate in. Two others are in Afghanistan and two additional ones are set to rotate in there. Also, several other brigades either are set for a future deployment or are scattered around the globe.
Military.com's Deployment Center
The few units that are not at war, in transformation or in their 12-months home time already are penciled in for deployments later in 2008 or into 2009. Shifting them would create problems in the long-term schedule.
Most Army brigades have completed two or three tours in Iraq or Afghanistan; some assignments have lasted as long as 15 months. The 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, has done four tours.
Two Marine regiments - each roughly the same size as an Army brigade - also in Iraq,- bringing the total number of brigades in the country to 20.
When asked what units will fill the void in the coming spring if any need to be replaced, officials give a grim shake of the head, shrug of the shoulders or a palms-up, empty-handed gesture.
"The demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply," the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey, said last week. "Right now we have in place deployment and mobilization policies that allow us to meet the current demands. If the demands don't go down over time, it will become increasingly difficult for us to provide the trained and ready forces" for other missions.
Casey said he would not be comfortable extending troops beyond their 15-month deployments. But other military officials acknowledge privately that option is on the table.
Pentagon leaders hope there is enough progress in Iraq to allow them to scale back at least part of the nearly 30,000-strong buildup when Soldiers begin leaving Iraq around March and April.
There are 162,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now, the highest level since the war began in 2003. That figure is expected to hit 171,000 this fall as fresh troops rotate in.
Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq who will deliver a much anticipated progress report to Congress in September, said Wednesday he is considering possible troop cuts and believes the U.S. will have fewer forces in Iraq by next summer.
Other commanders have said the security situation is improving, which would allow U.S. troops to be shifted from combat and lead to an eventual force reduction.
Still, Petraeus and other military leaders have warned against drawing down too quickly. In fact, an upbeat progress report in September may solidify arguments that additional troops should stay longer to ensure that positive changes stick.
"The longer that you keep American forces there, the longer you give this process to solidify and to make sure that it's not going to slide back," said Frederick Kagan, an American Enterprise Institute analyst who recently returned from an eight-day visit to Iraq. "The sooner you take them out, the more you run the risk that enemies will come in and try to disrupt."
Kagan, a leading supporter of the current buildup strategy, said any decision to maintain force levels would have to take into account the effects on the Army. That would include, he said, the strains of sending Guard units back to Iraq more rapidly than Pentagon policy allows or keeping active duty units there longer than 15 months.
"You have the same tradeoff at every moment in this process, which is the institutional well-being of the Army versus what is felt is necessary to win the war," Kagan said.
According to military officials, some Soldiers in Iraq are hearing that it may not be wise to pack their bags to come home when their 15-month tour is up. But to date, Pentagon officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have said they have no plans to extend those tours.
National Guard officials are bracing for a new round of Guard deployments and a move to decrease their time at home between tours - despite announced plans to give the citizen Soldiers five years off for every one year served.
One Guard official said this past week that the Army is pushing to give Guard units four years or less at home in order to get access to those combat brigades sooner.
Last April the Pentagon notified National Guard brigades in four states that they should be prepared to deploy to Iraq later this year. But documents obtained by the AP show that Guard units in five states - Indiana, Arkansas, Ohio, Oklahoma and Minnesota - are scheduled to deploy to Iraq before the end of the year. A New York Guard unit is set to go to Afghanistan.
The shortage of combat units will be remedied over time. The Pentagon slowly is increasing the size of the active-duty Army by 65,000 members to 547,000 by 2012. The 38 combat brigades currently available for war will expand to 48 by 2013.
The Iraqis hold the key to any U.S. withdrawals. The government in Baghdad has made little progress on political changes the Pentagon says are critical to restoring stability to the country, thus allowing U.S. troops to begin leaving.
If progress is not made and the violence does not abate, the Pentagon will turn again to the Army.
"The Army will do what's necessary and will pay a very high price if necessary," said Kagan. "but I'm hopeful that it won't come to that and I honestly don't think that it will."
This is why I think we need the draft. The National Guard and Reserves are already pushed to their brink as well. It would do alot of good for our younger people too, to have to serve.
0
-
CA sucks quote: " This is not WWII. In WWII we had open declarations of war from Japan and Germany (with the Jap one arriving just after Pearl Harbor).". To refresh your memory, the draft for WW 2 started in Oct.
1940. We did not enter the war until Dec 1941. It was "supposed" to be for one year of service. I recall the saying back then, "Good bye dear
I'll be back in a year". (It didnt work out that way though)0 -
With you here joe we have a real chance to get an inside look at this from someone who was actually living during this era. When the draft was introduced in 1940 it was quite controversial, but looking back it was actually a wise move based on events which began to move quite rapidly. As a young man at that time how did you feel about the draft? Did you sense an urgent need to build up our military or did you feel that the actions of Germany and Japan would not lead to the United States being involved in war? I'd really like to hear what you as the then typical American youth thought about what was unfolding in front of you during the years just prior to Peral Harbor. 0 -
Ok, so war hadn't came to the US... YET.
Germany had marched across Europe in 1940, Volunteer American airmen were fighting to defend Britain from air raids, and American Merchant men were loosing their lives on the high seas. Japan had seized control of much of the south pacific and its forces were poised to seize the Philippines (American soil at the time).
American volunteers with the Flying tigers had been fighting the Japanese for a while at that time.
The fighting had already started, and it was clear we were involved and it was going to get worse.
The draft was instated to make America ready for a conflict that was clearly coming to American shores (fortunately those shores were a few pacific/Alaskan Islands).
This draft you propose is not to get us ready for a necessary and unavoidable conflict, but to go play babysitter with radical Islamic nutjobs who want to kill each other.
Let them kill each other, let the Sunnis fight the Shiites, it was never our problem in the first place.
This draft isn't because of Afghanistan (where the government actually had something to do with 9-11), this draft isn't to deploy troops along the Mexican border.
It is not the idea of a draft I am opposed to, its what the draft is used for. As far as I can tell any draft would only be used to waste more American money and lives, and further sully our reputation around the world. I don't see how anything good can come of it.0 -
Quote: " The draft was instated to make America ready for a conflict that was clearly coming to American shores (fortunately those shores were a few pacific/Alaskan Islands)."... Quite true. Same as now. Just what in hell was 9-11 but a act of war where we lost over 3,000 people. And that is just the beginning of what we will see here. Our
Military is depending on techknowledgy which dont seem to be working out well. It needs enough people to take and control ground, namely more troops. In WW 2 we fielded over 16 million in the Military to go against (with our Allies) only 3 countries. Germany, Japan and Italy, and now we have many Muslim countries waiting ot take our scalps, not to mention China and N. Korea. Right now our Military is so damn outnumbered it is a laugh. Reminds me of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. And thats just what we are doing, "fiddling around" till it will be too late.0 -
quote:Originally posted by joeaf1911a1
Quote: " The draft was instated to make America ready for a conflict that was clearly coming to American shores (fortunately those shores were a few pacific/Alaskan Islands)."... Quite true. Same as now. Just what in hell was 9-11 but a act of war where we lost over 3,000 people. And that is just the beginning of what we will see here. Our
Military is depending on techknowledgy which dont seem to be working out well. It needs enough people to take and control ground, namely more troops. In WW 2 we fielded over 16 million in the Military to go against (with our Allies) only 3 countries. Germany, Japan and Italy, and now we have many Muslim countries waiting ot take our scalps, not to mention China and N. Korea. Right now our Military is so damn outnumbered it is a laugh. Reminds me of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. And thats just what we are doing, "fiddling around" till it will be too late.
An act of war by whom? The only real government that was even remotely involved in 9/11 was the Taliban, and they were defeated (or so we thought; they seem to be making a resurgence of late since Iraq has overshadowed Afghanistan).
9/11 was orchestrated by Islamic terrorists hailing mostly from Saudi Arabia. However, Saudi Arabia did not sponsor or condone the attacks. So we were not attacked by any country; rather we were attacked by a religious ideology.
You can't attack an ideology with soldiers, tanks, or aircraft. You have to use subtler methods - financial and political, namely. Rolling into Iraq as 'liberators' definitely did nothing but inflame the ideology and provide a wealth of new converts from every sh-thole middle eastern country.0 -
First let me say that we need the draft again to build our strength here at home, so that when, not if, invasion occurs we have the manpower to withstand it. Secondly, for those that say we are losing in Iraq, that is not far from truth. When you send 120,000-130,000 men and women to fight a war against the numbers over there you simply cannot effectively squash the problem. Send 500,000 and watch how fast things turn around. Of course, you must also be willing to let those men do their job as they see fit, without the pansy game playing of whom will we offend.
You can continue to wear down the limited number of troops we have until you no longer have a fighting force or you can build up the numbers to a sufficient amount of force to discourage attack in the first place.
The bottom line is too damn many of our people today are too soft and too self absorbed to care about where this country ends up. They will care however when they can no longer have their easy life because it is no longer what this country has. Does this offend anyone? If so, maybe you should take a long hard look at what your values are. Not meant to start a battle here, but sometimes we get so wrapped up in our own lives we cannot see beyond our back yards. swamp_thing0 -
quote:First let me say that we need the draft again to build our strength here at home, so that when, not if, invasion occurs we have the manpower to withstand it.
thats why we have the 2nd amendment and how many million gun owners in america???I would trust some good ole boy out of the deer woods covering my back with his deer rifle before I would some kid drafted from San Francisco/New York city that has never ever seen a gun must less fired one before he was drafted,,,but with this said if there was a draft just for homeland security I would allow my son to be drafted,,if your forcing him to go to the sand box,,I will send him Europe or canada or wherever to college until he is 30 something,,if he wants to join great but I will not allow him to be drafted against his will0 -
quote:Originally posted by CA sucks
It is not the idea of a draft I am opposed to, its what the draft is used for. As far as I can tell any draft would only be used to waste more American money and lives, and further sully our reputation around the world. I don't see how anything good can come of it.
Very well put. I think Joeaf is missing the point. It isn't about making up excuses. The arguments he's posing are coming from somebody that is assuming the occupation of Iraq is necessary. While most of America does not feel it is necessary any longer. That's the difference.
It's simple to see what's going on. Most veterans here feel that since they fought in a real war that now it's this generation's turn to pay their dues for America no matter what the reasoning is behind the conflict. Whether there's real (existing), obtainable objectives or not.
They also feel it is not the American public's decision on whether or not to continue a conflict. Only the military's decision, who presently serves a man only concerned about covering his own a$$ until he leaves office. The military commanders aren't allowed to have opposition to any of this or they'll be out of a job. Simple logic was abandoned a long time ago.
The opposition from Congress has been mounting for a long time and continues to mount. When a large group of people oppose what you are doing, (be it the American people, Congress, and/or your own party) it's time to examine your decision making. Bush seems to feel he's above that and he doesn't listen to majorities. Amazing how Saddam didn't either. [V]0 -
quote:Originally posted by joeaf1911a1
Quite true. Same as now. Just what in hell was 9-11 but a act of war where we lost over 3,000 people.
It was an act of *TERRORISM*, carried out by a handful of terrorists from random countries, backed by no government at all. No alleigance to anything. They live in the shadows. We obviously would be 1000 times better off had we just armed pilots with .45s after 9/11 rather than sending the military over-seas to take on whatever country Bush thought we could take on at the time while doing it on the cheap. The American public wanted heads to roll and I guess that's what we got for a while, but now we're paying for it. You want the public to 'man up' for a draft. In the mean time everybody wanted pilots to be armed from now on and Bush said, "NO". We couldn't even handle armed pilots.
Military is depending on techknowledgy which dont seem to be working out well.
We have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world!!! If worse comes to worse, we need to push the big red button instead of bankrupting the country, and struggling for years making ourselves look weak while losing thousands of our own against renegades. I'm not saying it has come to that but if it does, we need to do what we need to to. I'd say that technology has been perfected.
It needs enough people to take and control ground, namely more troops.
You come up with THEE PERFECT number of troops for Iraq, name any number and I'll tell you it will fail. We're getting seriously beat up by IEDs. Do you think losing more people to them is going to solve the problem? Especially with our current, unchanging strategy of only trying to get a puppet government in place so we can leave?? They're not going to go away. Kill all of them you want. They'll be replaced with more. More numbers just means more targets and more accidents to me. Sorry.0 -
Any political party which attempted to reinstitute the draft would be obliterated from the political landscape in the next election. Americans would vote against that party in such overwhelming numbers as to relegate it to third party status. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by swamp_thing
Secondly, for those that say we are losing in Iraq, that is not far from truth. When you send 120,000-130,000 men and women to fight a war against the numbers over there you simply cannot effectively squash the problem. Send 500,000 and watch how fast things turn around. Of course, you must also be willing to let those men do their job as they see fit, without the pansy game playing of whom will we offend.
Swamp, I agree they should have been allowed to do whatever's necessary a long time ago, no matter who had to die to make the point and get things under control. But we're not.
Aside from that, even with the current strategy, how strong numbers wise, do you think the actual resistance in Iraq is?? Whomever they are, where ever they're hiding, where ever they're coming from? Do you think our forces are out-numbered right now? Do you think there's more than 130,000 of them fighting us?
It's hard to take a guess but I highly doubt there's anywhere near that number. A group of 2000 to 3000 rebels hiding in street clothes, intent on causing chaos could do all that's going on over there every day AND MORE!! There very well may be less than those numbers! I don't understand why anybody thinks another 100,000 troops would solve anything. It's called gorilla warfare! We defeated the British with it a long time ago. Now, maybe 2 to 3000 rebels are going to punish us with the same tactics for as long as we're willing to stay there. I honestly can't understand anybody that would think any different.
They could not survive here. We have authorities that people will call. We have armed citizens ready to shoot the ba$tards in most states if need be. We don't want them here. But in Iraq, they will not only survive but thrive because of proximity and most of the Iraqi people don't care about Americans in the least. Very, very simple. It's a losing battle. Besides, nobody could describe what success would actually be if they tried. Anything that would even approach a wild idea of real success is a mere pipe dream.0 -
quote:Originally posted by joeaf1911a1
Just what in hell was 9-11 but a act of war where we lost over 3,000 people.
15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Guess how many came from Iraq? ZERO! And yet our President in his infinite wisdom has decided to sell billions of dollars worth of advanced military hardware to the country that spawned Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and the 9/11 hijackers.
Whatever we're doing in Iraq, it sure as bababooey isn't fighting the people who attacked us on 9/11. Those people are hiding in Pakistan, and their supporters are in Saudi Arabia (AKA Bush's #1 "ally" in the Middle East).0 -
vess1, actually I agree that the number of rebels is much less than our numbers. Where I see the problem is the thousands of Iraqi's that are either not going to do anything, or are going to assist the rebels. My logic, if you can call it that, with the higher numbers would be shear force to root out and destroy these cells of people. Can it be done? I honestly don't know for sure. What I am sure of is at the current capacity we have with numbers as well as having our mens hands tied is nothing more than a slow death.
Aside from that though is my honest concern that we are suffering and are going to continue to suffer right here at home from the lack of trained and available service men and women. As I stated early on in this thread the closure of many bases and downsizing of our military does in fact leave us weakened.
If we were to have to fight a war here at home, we would have to fight it mostly on the ground, as air attack methods would take out the enemy as well as our own folks. Maybe I am all washed up on this, and if so please don't take offense to what I have had to say. It is simply one mans ramblings from the sidelines. swamp_thing0 -
Hey swamp, don't sweat it. I'm just a guy rambling on the sidelines as well. I hope I haven't offended you either. I tend to be very strongly opinionated on things when I think I'm right and this happens to be one of those things.
Looking at this from a pure military standpoint, since so many people are still calling it a war, I can't figure out what the problem is.
The more I think about it, the more I think 130,000 troops is actually a large number of people to do something with given the fact that major combat operations ended years ago.
Just step back and look at the situation for a minute. We have total air superiority. We could drop a bomb or direct a missile onto any square inch of the country we wanted to at any time. We've had that capability for years! They can take out any building they want at any time. No Iraqi's going to stop us. No insurgent could stop us. No country in the world would stop us or even say a word about it. That's a lot of capability IMO, assuming you have any intelligence info at all.
If that's not enough, we have over 130,000 people there on the ground right now. That's a small number for no major combat operations?? We could deploy 10, 20, 30 THOUSAND people to any flare up, anywhere we want in the country at any time. While leaving over 100,000 behind to be dispersed anywhere as needed. Another ability they've had for years. Not enough to squash the resistance? That seems like a lot of manpower to me for what should be a relatively peaceful country now, aside from a suicide bomber here and there.
If the point hasn't been driven home yet..... What in the WORLD happened to all of the Iraqi military and policemen being trained and equiped by the U.S. government over the last how many *YEARS*? They were giving us six digit figures years ago and suddenly it's as if they don't exist anymore!! Where'd they go and if they're still there, WTH are they doing with them?0 -
Hell, they are as corrupt as the rest. There are too many different groups that want their piece of the pie. As far as why can't we stop it, we already know the answer there I think. That was the other part of my statement. Our men can only do what they are told they can do. Political warfare has no end. It takes a full circle to win any war. Manpower, ability to overpower the enemy, and the authorization to do so at whatever cost. That wins wars.
Now, we need politicians with the nads to do this, manpower to see it through, and sufficient forces to defend our homeland in the process.
I was never offended in this thread, simply wanted to get a point on the table so to speak. I'll get off my soapbox now, but hope I have given everyone food for thought if nothing more. swamp_thing0 -
quote:Originally posted by swamp_thing
Hell, they are as corrupt as the rest.
Well, if we can't even trust them to protect their own people, what are we doing there?
I just watched the local news and had to see the nightly spot of another mother crying over the daughter she lost in Iraq. Very, very sad.
Bottom line here is, if we're willing to send troops into harms way, we better have a damn good reason to give as an explanation to mothers like this. Whether sending them initially or continuing to leave them deployed. No opinions, no speculation, no BS. It better be VERY black and white. If it's not, it is nothing less than a C.in Chief being arrogant, wreckless, selfish and uncaring. Give me some time and I'll come up with more. Apparently nothing was learned from Vietnam.
I don't need to go through the history of this for everyone. I don't normally harp on the lack of WMDs found but the administration did come out and admit there was some faulty intel that led to the invasion. Yet even now, we remain there. I've heard no good reason from anyone over why the occupation should continue besides it would be bad FOR THE IRAQI PEOPLE if we left.
I couldn't defend the current occupation if I tried, let alone re-newing the draft over it. I truly feel sorry for anybody that has to be there or that has a loved one deployed. Our government has let you down.
As for all the downsizing and base closing... heh, at this point, what's another blunder?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
76 comments