OUGwave Wrote:Schadenfreude, you belittle the troops that have paid the ultimate price for us by stereotyping them all as hired mercenaries who didn't believe in their cause or were so stupid they were duped into it.
I do no such thing.
I respect the sacrafices our forces are making in Iraq -- entirely.
I was simply responding to the proposition that Bush might lead us on an invasion of another country during his second term.
The reality is that we don't have the troops. People are not signing up for our armed forces the way they used to. It is well known that the military has had to resort to all sorts of tricks to keep boots on the ground in Iraq. It is well known that recruiters aren't meeting their goals.
To get the troops needed, Bush will need to do one of three things:
1. Leave Iraq now. This seems doubtful. I suppose the emerging Islamic-leaning government there could order us to do so. On the other hand, it would appear there is a strong risk of a Sunni-Shiite civil war if we were leave at the moment.
2. Institute a draft. This seems doubtful.
3. Increase incentives for people to sign up. This would seem the most likely. And it means targeting people who our economy has left behind.
The military has long drawn heavily on the poor and working class to put boots on the ground. That's not new. Suburban kids just aren't signing up very often, and it is difficult to imagine an incentive -- short of a draft -- that would get them to do so.
Pointing out this fact out makes no statement at all about the sacrafices these men and women make.
These men and women are putting their lives on the line. They have earned our respect.