It seems clear enough to me that when a high ranking military man speaks about the need for a draft he is floating an idea that the administration thinks is a good one. If the demonstrations start then the administration has lost nothing and just admonishes the general for speaking out of turn. But the time is coming--whether under a Democrat or Republican when the draft talk will become serious. Our military is by no means the largest of any country in the world despite procouncements to the contrary. It surely is the best and the best equipped but we are short of manpower for the role we play on the world stage. Sure, we can withdraw from the world and just try to defend our shores. We thought we could avoid WWII that way but finallly had to face up to the fact that if we stood alone long enough we'd probably lose our freedoms. So today we find ourselves the lone superpower--the leader of the free world. Nobody likes the idea of sending our young men and women overseas to fight and die on our behalf. But we can't have peace by ignoring our enemies. They will seek us out soon enough and do us great damage on our home soil. Better to face it now and on their soil. The casualites we are facing now would be trivial compared to what would happen if we pulled back into a protectionist shell. The democrats know this. If elected they won't pull out of Iraq. Oh, they'll promise it on the campaign trail and then change their tune once in control. This is the moment of truth. What we do now re Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea could make or break us in the years to come. To fight these battles we need another million or more men and women under arms.

What do you mean by 'facing our enemy on their soil'? I thought that America was supposed to be liberating the people of Iraq, not fighting them. But most Iraqis are opposed to the occupation of their country. Most Iraqis are opposed to the illegal privatisation of their economy. Most Iraqis are opposed by American attempts to get their hands on Iraqs oil.

If America wants democracy why don't they respect the opinions of the majority of people in the country they are occupying? Why are they increasing the tension? .. Creating more violence? ... murdering Iraqi men, women and children?

Care to back up your assertions with support?

It is debatable if the majority of Iraqis want the U.S. out now, but even if we accept that premise, there are segments in Iraq that support continued US presence. Moreover, there are areas that might into genocidal bloodbaths if the US pulled out too quickly.

Of course, I am certain that these little nuances are lost on someone like yourself.

of the linked document.

"We thought we could avoid WWII that way but finallly had to face up to the fact that if we stood alone long enough we'd probably lose our freedoms."

What freedoms are you talking about? Constitutional freedoms? Those was never the slightest risk of being conquered and deprived of our Constitution by either the Germans or the Japanese. Now, the freedom to go wherever we want and do whatever we want (called "American Interests", or American hegemony), those "freedoms" were at risk, sure.

But WWII is such a bad analogy to the current conflict, I don't know why you even bring it up. The Cold War is more apt. Or even what Philip Bobbitt calls "The Long War", by which he means everything between 1914 and 1990.

We have sufficient combat power to take down a rogue regime, just not sufficient US troops to police a country of 25M. But that's OK, because we don't have any business using our conventional forces for that purpose anyway. That's what the force multipliers in Special Forces are there for.

"So today we find ourselves the lone superpower--the leader of the free world."

Maybe in 1991 -- not any more.