My understanding is that Congress needs to first pass legislation to increase the size of the military. Is Congress going to be pig-headed enough to increase the size *and* immediately start the draft, without seeing how many volunteers show up?

We have a professional military and it seems to be working quite well, really. We have an excellent officer corps and a NCO corps that is the envy of the world. That will NOT be helped by a draft.

Hey, Jack -- let's say the Bushies get back in. (Big if. Very big if.) If the administration (in the form of the White House or the Pentagon) advocates a draft on the record, even once, I will pay you $100. If let's say, by June 2006, they haven't, even once, you pay me $100.

Do we have a bet?

Can I pay you in Swedish currency? If Bush is re-elected, I may not have quick access to U.S. dollars. 8c)

Actually, it's the Democrats who are introducing draft bills right now. But read the numbers: We need what? 138,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely? What happens when the North Koreans wake up on the wrong side of the bed one morning and start marching toward Seoul?

If you had strong allies who were willing to help, you might avoid a draft in that situation. But under the Bush Doctrine, we don't.

So, we're talking about blaming Bush for a potential draft (something that would more than likely have a serious negative effect on the quality and morale of the troops we have available), when the legislation is being introduced by Democrats? I'm scratching my head.
Plus, if North Korea actually did go forward and attack South Korea, I can't imagine even the U.N. sitting on their thumbs with a resolution, resolution, resolution strategy. We'd have a lot more support for action in that scenario than we did for this unpopular "pre-emptive" fight in Iraq.

We'd have a lot more support for action in that scenario than we did for this unpopular "pre-emptive" fight in Iraq.

Really? Would the French and Spanish just jump right in?

First of all, I'm entirely serious about that bet.

Secondly, the Korean situation won't be changed by the moving of one or two brigades outside of Korea. Let's say Kim wakes up on the wrong side of the bed and decides to invade. What's going to happen?

Well, he'd be able to annihilate Seoul; there's nothing we can do about that unless you know a means of magically making artillery shells disappear mid-flight. His invasion forces would likely be tied up in the DMZ and be eaten alive by the miles and miles of minefields. Any actual invasion forces would likely be faced by actual ROK troops, which I understand are pretty tough. (Modern military forces under constant threat of invasion usually are -- see Israel.) It's likely that US/Korean troops would trade land for time while clearly superior US/ROK air forces cut the invasion force off.

All of that to say that the actual invasion threat from the Norks is pretty small; unconventional threats or nuclear threats are far more likely.

Finally, I object to the assertion that we need troops in Iraq indefinitely. Over the next five to ten years, sure. But where are those troops coming from? Not the draft -- my speculation is that they will come from the permanent redeployment of troops from Western Europe into Iraq.

I object to the assertion that we need troops in Iraq indefinitely. Over the next five to ten years, sure. But where are those troops coming from? Not the draft -- my speculation is that they will come from the permanent redeployment of troops from Western Europe into Iraq.

In American politics these days, "five to 10 years" is an eternity.

Western Europe sending soldiers to help Bush? What am I missing that this seems so highly unlikely to me?

U.S. troops, that is. Those based in Germany, specifically. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Really? Would the French and Spanish just jump right in?

Probably not, but I'm okay with that. Their contribution in other areas has turned out to be underwhelming. Besides, I don't think that we should base our foreign policy on what the French and Spanish think. Their failure to assist us in Iraq may be indicative that they would do the same were South Korea to be invaded by the North. But I don't think that would or should stop us from coming to the aid of our allies in a time of need.

Yes, but without allies, we can't come up with 300,000 or more combat troops at once.

Unless we reinstitute a draft.

So your point is: Our "allies" are shortsighted idiots who probably wouldn't help defend South Korea, yet we should base our Iraq policy on their willingness to participate?

> What am I missing that this seems so highly unlikely to me?

This post cracks me up: Democrats want to reinstate the draft, so therefore don't vote for Bush.

Well, see, if they can reinstitute the draft _and blame it on Bush_ (even though I don't recall him asking for one), well, they can manufacture another club to use on him.

Hmm.

No, the chronological way this seemed to be happening was this-
*Too many of our armed forced permanently involved in one 'basket'.
*Thus rendering U.S. vulnerable.
*Repub asks Dem for favor to introduce legislation (which we all know doesnt mean diddly squat- or anyone who has ever worked in D.C. knows) which will probably be killed in exchange for something, here where you plug in your own theory or rumour.
(read somewhere in NYTimes awhile ago I believe)

It's called playing politics, ladies and gentlemen. Your critical thinking caps need to be on, even if your ethical beanie tops don't agree with procedure.