Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Knocking down Rangel
Charles Rangel's argument for the draft has occupied the news discussion yesterday and today. Rangel says that we wouldn't get into bad wars if the elite had sons and daughters in the military.
This argument can be knocked down utterly and completely with just one sentence, but I haven't heard anyone use this knockdown. [I was waiting for Rush to reach it this morning, but he hasn't yet....]
So here goes:
It didn't stop Vietnam.
In 1961, the draft had been in use for a century, and its effects were deeply infused in our culture and emotions. Government officials knew that any man could be drafted - though they had always been able to protect their own sons to some extent.
Despite that, they got us into an elective war, and proceeded to fight it incompetently so as to grind up a maximum number of draftees with a minimum of results.
It was the incompetence that led us to shun elective wars from then on. If we had fought properly, the 'Vietnam Syndrome' wouldn't have evolved.
Same thing now, unfortunately. If we had killed Saddam, then established Kurdistan as a base, allowing the Arab savages to continue killing each other for sport, we would have a genuine victory. Our soldiers would be available to fight other battles. This availability by itself would deter enemy actions, thus requiring less work for the soldiers.
But because George W. Vichy has acted with breathtaking incompetence, violating every long-standing rule of war, strategy and common sense, we are firmly back in the 'Vietnam Syndrome'. ¶ 9:40 AM
This argument can be knocked down utterly and completely with just one sentence, but I haven't heard anyone use this knockdown. [I was waiting for Rush to reach it this morning, but he hasn't yet....]
So here goes:
It didn't stop Vietnam.
In 1961, the draft had been in use for a century, and its effects were deeply infused in our culture and emotions. Government officials knew that any man could be drafted - though they had always been able to protect their own sons to some extent.
Despite that, they got us into an elective war, and proceeded to fight it incompetently so as to grind up a maximum number of draftees with a minimum of results.
It was the incompetence that led us to shun elective wars from then on. If we had fought properly, the 'Vietnam Syndrome' wouldn't have evolved.
Same thing now, unfortunately. If we had killed Saddam, then established Kurdistan as a base, allowing the Arab savages to continue killing each other for sport, we would have a genuine victory. Our soldiers would be available to fight other battles. This availability by itself would deter enemy actions, thus requiring less work for the soldiers.
But because George W. Vichy has acted with breathtaking incompetence, violating every long-standing rule of war, strategy and common sense, we are firmly back in the 'Vietnam Syndrome'. ¶ 9:40 AM
