Whats this? How can what so many people claim to be the most powerful army in the world be buckling under the occupational duties in a medium-sized nation? Because the army's superiority has been based around technology, not manpower, since the cold war.

Invading Iraq and defeating the Iraqi army went near-flawlessly. This is what our army is supposed to do - get in on a moment's notice, blow things up, and eliminate the enemy force. But that phase of the war ended years ago, and we have spent the vast majority of the time in Iraq playing policeman. Whether or not maintaining order among local militias and guerrilla warriors is even possible today is a debatable point - however, it is certainly a task that our army does not have the manpower for.

I'm not in favor of a draft or becoming isolationist simply because we can't maintain order around the world on our own. I think the best formula is one that goes like this: if we have to go to war, the US military is the tip of the spear. If we have to engage in a long-drawn peacekeeping mission, we need to reach out to our allies to provide additional manpower and expertise.

This is what has worked (more or less) in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. (The Taliban has regrouped only because of its sanctuaries in Pakistan. Though civilian deaths are a growing problem, US and European soldiers are still much more welcomed by the Afghani populace than by the Iraqis).

This should be how the US should approach future conflicts - define the mission, clear the path, and bring in our allies as stakeholders to support long-term reconstruction after the smoke clears. In a word, Lead.

jwschmidt:

This should be how the US should approach future conflicts - define the mission, clear the path, and bring in our allies as stakeholders to support long-term reconstruction after the smoke clears. In a word, Lead.

Sounds awfully like "make the others clean up the mess after the party".

The long-term reconstruction you call necessitates the unfortunate long-term occupation of the country, whether that's wanted or not. You may call it 'peace-keeping mission', but please realise no other country wants to 'peace-keep' in Iraq or Iran, any more than you do. It's a thankless task, and simply isn't in the training of a modern army.

If that's what it is to 'lead', please don't expect anyone to follow. sleep in the bed you made.

. I am not referring to you directly in this, jwschmidt, just following along in the thread, so please don't read any of my statemesnts here as referring direcly with your post [with which I agree 100% by the way].

I have an idea, for those who seem to have a need to discuss this non-starter of a concept.In 1972, I was subject to the draft and received a very high lottery number (290). I was never called to serve in Vietnam--just lucky. Since 1973, no one has been called to serve, against their will. Most of us in that group, however, are latter era baby Boomers, who are mostly very highly educated and, in many cases,in excellent physical shape, compared to 40 and 50 year olds of our father and mothers generation. We certainly have reaped all the benefits this country has had to offer us--how about some payback ? I think we have this conscription notion completely backward. If there was a renewall of conscription, it should START with any of us within that group who have not served. With the increasing role of technology in military affairs and the plethora of non-combat roles served by so many of our troops, why not use US for a required period of one year, to provide those services. Pay us the same wages as a soldier in the same situation and require, by Federal mandate, that all of our employers hold our jobs and positions for us when we are done ith our service. This would free up more "combat ready" bodies from these tasks and probably double the available "boots on the ground" and at the same time, give so many of us, insulated Chicken-Hawks that so many of us are, the opportunity to REALLY put out money where our red white and blue mouths are and DO instead of talk. I would think that Sean Hannitty, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, for example, would rush to be first at the draftboard if such a policy were enacted. Also, to model the Roman republic that our own is somewhat based upon, those in positions of government should have their children drafted first,when it comes down to those ages, as a sign of their commitment to the "cause", whatever it may be. That would mean the Bush twins and other offspring of our respected leadership in the 3 branches of government, having enacted [if it ever comes to that] such legislation, should be selcted immediately, as a sign of the commitment of our own officials to their legislation.

Do those things and you can be sure that this talk will end--or that we will become far wiser in deciding where and when we send our troops anywhere.

And whom, my dear JwSchmidt, would so conveniently avail themselves to subject themselves to our leadership? I don't know whether you have recently traveled abroad, or have at the very least regularly read foreign opinions on topic of the American foreign policy and the strategy with which that is executed.

I did and thus know with a likelyhood bordering to complete certainty that there is presently no goodwill on that topic to be gained from ANY foreign sovereign entities such as Nations and Federations, much less a burning desire to pleasantly perform our dirty work after we (as in US) traipse off to the PX or take a shower after the battles are done being fought. Zip! Zilch! Nada! It will take a very long time, subsequently a very cold day in hell, to restore any confidence and trust in the us (again, as in US.).

There simply is no-one to be led willingly and with that your premise fails and falls.

We totally agree and would hope for an all volunteer military force by mutually agreed terms that are fully explored and unbiasely debated to come to a concensus.Only citizens that are willing by their own accord and maybe sense of patriotic duty should be employed by our military. These people should want this for their life here on Earth, and not be forced to a draft as in the past. To make mistakes is acceptable, if you try to rectify the mistake as best as possible and learn from the mistake as to not ever make it again. To do less is pure idiocy and does no one any good, especially yourself.We could all make this World a better place if We, the People, could always learn from the past- mistakes and most of all from what was good and worked for the betterment of All !!! Peace thru Love, by and for everybody...

Diplomacy vs. draft is not the real choice; going for the draft is really a choice for world war.

The real choice is either we begin to behave as an equal among friends with whom we may have differences, and then work things out on the basis of practical results and negotiations with complete honesty, OR we are going to have a world war, because the people of the world are not going to submit to Bush; they are not going to submit to imperial Bushite USA, or any imperial entity.

If we have a world war, there are going to be nukes, and the chances of avoiding a nuclear winter are virtually nil, and a nuclear winter will destroy all mammalian life on this planet (for the dummies, that means you).

Those are the real, concrete, real world, non-brain farting 21st Century choices.

I dispise the media for not revealing the truth to us.

How about this variation, combining your idea and one of Robert Heinlein's early ideas? If congress votes to send us to war (peacekeeping duty, whatever), those congressmen who voted in favor who can fight are on the first bus to boot camp, along with the eligible relatives of those congressmen who voted in favor but CAN'T fight, and the eligible relatives of the Executive branch members who are involved promoting the war. As the war progresses, follow up with the congressmen and relatives thereof who didn't have a REALLY good excuse for not attending.