And I'm not talking about a Stout Beer! From the second best site in the World (DKos being first) - Thinkprogress.
Yesterday, Bush’s "war czar," Gen. Doug Lute, told NPR that "it makes sense to certainly consider" a military draft and that it "has always been an option on the table." Americans Against Escalation in Iraq has produced a video that puts Lute’s comments into context with the administration’s plan to stay in Iraq for "a nine or ten year endeavour." Watch it:
Continued Gen Patreas has also argued that...
I don't know whether this will be decades, but average counter-insurgency is somewhere around a 9 or 10 year endeavor.
Decades? Is he talking about the Boer War here?
There has long been the argument that Bush dropped the ball on Iraq right from the start by ignoring Gen. Shinseki who based on our past experience with Bosnia argued that we would need several hundred thousand soldiers to control Iraq in Feb or 2003.
"Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We’re talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so, it takes significant ground force presence to maintain safe and secure environment to ensure that the people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this." [Sen. Armed Services Committee testimony, 2/25/03]
He of course, was attacked unmercifully for making such a obviously crazy suggestion.
"A senior Pentagon official dismissed General Shinseki’s comments as ‘bullshit from a Clintonite enamored of using the army for peacekeeping and nation-building and not winning wars.’" [Village Voice, 3/19/03]
And then he was tossed off the bus.
"For the past two years Gen Shinseki has been in total eclipse after what appears to have been the most spectacular bust-up with his civilian bosses, in particular Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary. ... he had already been turned into a lame duck (‘castrated’, according to the same Pentagon source) by the apparently unprecedented Rumsfeld decision to announce his successor 18 months in advance." [Guardian, 3/29/03]
One might argue that having a sufficiently overwhelming force just might quell the ethnic strife and violence that has raged their over the past year - but wouldn't we basically be fully taking on the role of occupiers.
The Soviet Union used similar methods to maintain control of the former Yugoslavia and it was after they withdrew that internal tensions flared to create the Bosnian War. The reality is that it's far too late to go down this path for Iraq, considering how well the current Surge has worked (or not), what is desperately needed is not a Super-Surge of troops to feed into the maw - but a Diplomatic Surge.
All of the various factions and leaders in the region need to be brought to the table in an intensive round of talks to work out their differences and a cease fire called. We Need to CALL A SUMMIT, preferably somewhere outside Iraq - on neutral ground so that those involved in negotiations won't be afraid for their own safety.
That's the only way out of this Mess-O-Potamia, it just isn't likely to happen until Bush is out of the White House.