Wednesday, September 15, 2004


Edwards: No Military Draft If Dems Win

Senator John Edwards is an ignorant, irresponsible glamour-tart. That's my phrase, but you're welcome to borrow it if you like.

From the AP-- Edwards: No Military Draft if Dems Win.

During a question-and-answer session, the mother of a 23-year-old who recently graduated from West Virginia University asked Edwards whether the draft would be reinstated.

"There will be no draft when John Kerry is president," Edwards said, a statement that drew a standing ovation.
Damn. Here I was, about to sign a contract on a Winnipeg timeshare.

FYI, Garfield Ridge has it on good authority that when John Kerry is president, there will be no terrorist bombings here in America, no WMD attacks anywhere in the world, and The Police will reunite for a U.S. tour. Oh, and free puppies for everyone, except for Zell Miller.

Ya'll can keep your stinkin' puppies, ya filthy jack-ninnies.

Seriously-- is this AP quote from the "psychic"? You know, the OTHER John Edwards, who lives in the OTHER America? Both John Edwards display a similar inability to predict the future.

You heard it here first folks: there will be no draft in the next four years.

Unless, of course, there's a military crisis that requires a draft.

Well, duh.

For all the stress the military is under right now, needing more manpower is not the problem. Expensive manpower is the problem. For every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine costs a fortune to train, equip, supply, and support.

"Support" being the magic word, as military pay, medical insurance, and retirement benefits represent a significant slice of the DoD budget. I'd argue it's the most significant slice-- while it's always possible to buy cheaper bombs, you can't buy cheaper soldiers.

Then again, we get what we pay for: intelligent, highly-skilled, and highly-motivated members of the Armed Forces, not only willing but often eager to fight for their country.

If in the next four years the DoD determines that it needs to increase its end strength (i.e., the maximum number of active military personnel it can keep on duty), the solution will be simple: it will spend more money. DoD will recruit more inductees. DoD will train more recruits. And DoD will pay extra to keep recruits around longer.

Think this is impossible? Why? We did it for twenty years.

For example-- the Army in 2004 has an authorized end strength of 482,400 soldiers.

The authorized end strength of the Army in 1985, at the height of the Cold War, was 780,787 soldiers.

You know how the Army supported nearly 300,000 more soldiers in 1985 versus today?

Not with a draft-- but with cold hard cash.

And today, America not only has a larger population to recruit from, it also vastly more wealthy than it was in 1985.

Some Democrats griped in the aftermath of 9/11 that President Bush wasn't asking all of us fat, lazy SUV-driving Americans to "sacrifice" for the war effort. As if driving a crappy hybrid is going to somehow convince Osama Bin Laden to stop his jihad against the House of Saud.

Instead, Bush told us to go about our lives, and go shopping. It sounded like outtakes from the Rowdy Roddy Piper classic They Live, the constant messages to "consume" and "reproduce."

John Kerry practices being presidential.

Well, the Dems want to sacrifice? Cash is nothing but labor in paper form. Their cash, and my cash, and your cash, will go to fund a larger military instead of more pork, or more social entitlements. Problem solved.

For the sake of Senator Edwards' education, please understand: even if we need hundreds of thousands of more troops in the next four years, we will just spend more money to recruit them. If we need even more soldiers than that, we will draft them.

Or, just as likely, we'll simply be forced to drop the big one on whomever's shoving us around so hard that we seriously contemplate reinstituting the draft.

However, any situation dire enough to demand a draft would demand a draft regardless of the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. John Edwards must know this (he's got a law degree, for Chrissakes, he has to be smarter than he looks), which is why his promise is meaningless-- either as an attack against the Bush Administration, or as a solemn promise to Americans.

ya' filthy jack ninny

haha I love Zell

Edwards is like one of those scary little hummel figurines my ex mother in law use to collect.


funny stuff today, dave

Edwards = Hummel?

Now THAT'S funny. Funny because it's true.

He also looks like a bobblehead at times, but that may be just me.

Thanks for enjoying today's post Jen. . . continuous improvement keeps the workers happy and the quota met.

Didn't INDC post a Hummel Edwards picture a couple of weeks back? That seems to be a theme a lot of people are seeing.

The DNC platform includes adding 40,000 troops and using NG for Homeland Security. Maybe they want a draft for that. The only politicians I can think of seriously talking draft are both Democrats, that guy from Harlem (Rangel?)and the one from Washington State (McDermott?).

Actually, a few of my coworkers (all women, all with twentysomething-year old children) were in a bit of a panic this morning reading a bill sponsored by the likes of McDermott et al. intended to bring back the draft (or national service, for all those who don't want to touch those icky rifles).

I had to basically repeat my entire post to them to explain to them how it was not likely. That, and as my job is congressional affairs, explain to them how no bill sponsored by Baghdad Jim and Sheila Jackson-Lee will be coming into law this century.

I had a panicky co-worker awhile back concerned about a draft and his two 20 something year old sons. He asked me how I'd feel about my sons (12 + 16) serving in the military. My response was that I was raising men, not boys. Then I explained how astonomically unlikely a real draft would be, but if it somehow became a need, my sons would have already enlisted by then.

Everybody wants the honey, nobody wants to fight the bees to get it.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?