Fire the bums. It will be entertaining to see them search for real work when they have no actual skills.

So the diplomats don't like to go to the scary countries. That explains a lot.

Or merely unpleasant ones where much time in the remote provinces with few amenities and no five star hotels means "hardship."

Pampered, spoiled, and pathetic.

America is not at war; only America's military is at war.
Why do you guys believe in a draft for diplomats, but not a draft for citizens? A diplomat on forced assignment probably wouldn't be as useful as a voluntary diplomat, judging from normal human behavior.

Joining the active military - and nowadays, reserves - you are accepting of a certain level of risk. But for the State employees who joined between 1975 and 2001? Daily(weekly?) shelling would close down any other embassy, and they've relied on this information as well. They've have made career decisions about a certain level of risk, moreso as setbacks have become more important.

For people with 25+ years in, they've known that someone could drive a car into their embassy, or track their movements for capture, on less than a whim. To dismiss them as jerks because they are saying that this is much more than they would have expected their government to ask of them - well, I dunno.

Is this going to be the next chickenhawk argument? Sure, you may not be fit enough or young enough to join the military, but why not apply to State with your willingness to go to Iraq? I hope not.

I think the State Department is as deeply flawed as the intelligence community...
the hard reality is that the latest generation of diplomats and spies isn't doing what needs to be done
I'd find this plausable - it's been flawed for years, and I wouldn't be surprised if you could trace it to the decline of spycraft being necessary and a reason alone to operate an embassy. But two of bush's top minds - Hughes(who just left) and Rice - aren't getting it done either. Have they been unable or unwilling to deal with this problem, or are just unable to overcome the world's current perception?

As a Foreign Service Officer (see oath of office) Mr. Croddy makes a fine union rep. He is not nobility entitled, regardless of performance, to an income from the public treasury. If his speech was not the rhetorical argument of one acting as shop steward but rather a genuinely personal plea, he needs to find other employment.

Is this going to be the next chickenhawk argument? Sure, you may not be fit enough or young enough to join the military, but why not apply to State with your willingness to go to Iraq?

You can't walk into a recruiting office and join the State Department. After passing the tests and clearances, you can get your name in the foreign service register. This entitles you to possibly be offered a job with the State Department, some day, after all the higher-ranked names on the list.

People are waiting in a long line for those jobs. Time to get out the list.

Dave, I don't believe in a draft for citizens because a soldier on forced assignment probably wouldn't be as useful as a voluntary soldier, judging from normal human behavior. This isn't a "draft for diplomats". Nobody is suggesting we conscript citizens into the Foreign Service. We're suggesting that people already working there, who I presume were made aware of conditions listed on the FSO FAQ -

bq.# Do I have to accept every assignment that is offered?

bq.Foreign Service personnel can express their preference for postings, but must be willing to serve worldwide according to the needs of the Service.
bq.# Does the system tolerate dissent?

bq.As public servants, Foreign Service Officers must publicly defend U.S. government policy, despite personal reservations. There is an internal channel through which an employee may present dissenting views on specific foreign policy issues. If an officer cannot publicly defend official U.S. policy, he or she has the option to resign.

- those people should be held to the promises they made, like someone who joined the reserve or active duty military between 1975-2001, got used to a certain degree of risk, and then got called up. A diplomat on forced assignment probably wouldn't be as useful as a voluntary diplomat, but may be better than no diplomat at all.

Have they been unable or unwilling to deal with this problem, or are just unable to overcome the world's current perception?
Croddy sure sounds like he agrees with "the world's current perception", to the extent that tracks BBC editorial opinion. He's all but saying he doesn't believe in what the government is doing in Iraq. So much for 'publicly defending U.S. government policy, despite personal reservations.' He and the hundreds who applaud him clearly don't feel bound to serve an elected government they don't like. Which is fine, that's why we have resignation letters.

At #4, Dave wrote:

Why do you guys believe in a draft for diplomats, but not a draft for citizens?

Who said anything about a draft? If a foreign service officer doesn't like the duty assigned him, he can quit his oath, resign his office, and walk away. No conscript can do that. Just ask Eddie Slovik.

A diplomat on forced assignment probably wouldn't be as useful as a voluntary diplomat, judging from normal human behavior.

If "normal human behavior" were all it took, anybody could do it. One expects the teacher educating one's children, or the brain surgeon preparing to drill into one's skull, to obtain professional rather than "normal human" behavior. Same goes for foreign service officers.

And even if a pouty diplomat around the embassy were not as "useful" as a grown-up one, would it not be better than none at all?

Whyever do we need an embassy in iraq? I guess it props up the idea that iraq has a sovereign government, but is that enough reason to build our biggest and most expensive embassy in the world there?

Sure, if we're going to put an embassy in a chaos zone the diplomats have to take their chance at serving there. But don't we usually keep our diplomats out of places where there's no public order?

A diplomat on forced assignment probably wouldn't be as useful as a voluntary diplomat, but may be better than no diplomat at all.

Almost without a doubt - but take a look at AL's original post, and the article it links to, the first three comments here, and you find a common theme. Not recognizing that people have made a contribution to the US over their years, or if they have gone through hardship assignments in the past, but dismissing them as selfish, whiny, and arrogant.

We're taking people who have made a significant contribution to their country over the years, and sneering at them. They differ from the military if for no other reason than the sporadic wars/actions - Grenada, Iraq I, Somalia, etc - have been real reminders of enemy action, and not just 2 attacks in hostile nations, in 30+ years.

Especially when under combat conditions FSO and their ilk have been pulled out in the past - Haiti is the last I recall, but that's a bit fuzzy(was there just a reduction?).

We're suggesting that people already working there, who I presume were made aware of conditions listed on the FSO FAQ -
Without going into what is not covered in the FAQ, I'd also bet they've been briefed on what their actions would be if a compound came under attack. And this is the first time that "duck and cover, then go back to what you were doing" has been the only expected action.
I have no problem with what they're saying, and I can accept moving on to someone else on the list if need be. Hopefully that next person will be made aware they may be inserted into an active war zone.

You can't walk into a recruiting office and join the State Department. After passing the tests and clearances, you can get your name in the foreign service register. This entitles you to possibly be offered a job with the State Department, some day, after all the higher-ranked names on the list.

You can't just walk into a recruiting office and join the army, either. They have tests and standards and all that too.

Maybe if you apply to the state department today you'll get to the head of the list. Maybe a lot of the guys who wanted to get in on that are having second thoughts about doing it in iraq, and maybe having to get evacuated by helicopter and all.

This might be your chance to get in on the ground floor. Even if you aren't qualified to be a soldier this could be your chance. You could go to iraq and help out.

Dave, if you read the post, I'm actually questioning whether they have "made a significant contribution to their country"; and I'm no more sympathetic to someone who took a job knowing what the rules were (see #7) and then refuses to play than I would be to anyone else who violates a contract freely made.

J Thomas - the problem I have with the 'chickenhawk' meme in all variants (including the one you just made) is that it's fundamentally not an argument, it's an attempt to use a false moral claim to end argument by driving the people you disagree with out of it. As such, if you believe as I do that the availability to all of strong argument and debate is the moral core of human politics, it's a deeply immoral argument. Don't make it here, it just weakens your claims.

A.L.

This one goes right to the issue that almost everyone hates: those that have a sense of entitlement. Fire them NOW.

Not that this has a lot to do with diplomat,but since the draft was raised, I thought I would mention that I have never been happy with an all volunteer army. Among other things it:

1. Alienates the military from the society at large.
2. Undermines the citizen soldier concept, which helps make for a more cohesive society through shared responsibility.
3. Dilutes the Constitutional concept that it is only the people through it's broadest based representative body, the congress that can declare war.
4. Allows us as citizens to "outsource" wars to certain areas of our population.
5. Re-enforces an elitist mentality in those who do not serve, as is expressed in phrases like, "America is not at war; only America's military is at war."

Once you set the all volunteer army concept in motion, I don't think you have to go to far to get to a diplomatic corps that wants to be able to pick and choose assignments.

The problem with the draft is that it is always billed to 'solve' problems we civilians have created politically. Once again, we cant act like grown up so the military will suffer for it. Their job is to be effective, not to assuage our egos about how and when we choose to fight.

AL, I don't consider the chickenhawk thing an argument about the issues at all.

If you tell somebody "put your money where your mouth is" that is not an argument that they're wrong. Somebody can be completely right and still not be willing to make bets on it or use it to play the options market or whatever. They have even less obligation to bet their @ss.

However, when somebody is scorning somebody else's patriotism, when they say somebody else really ought to take some moral stand they don't take themselves, then it isn't so wrong to suggest that they make a similar stand.

I think that claim is more justified for the state department than it is for, say, reservists. The reserves are there to be called up in an emergency.

The state department guys know going in that they might have to serve in hardship posts. Niger, say. Paraguay. Uzbekistan. Outer Mongolia. And embassies get bombed occasionally, or there are attempts. Lebanon, tanzania, kenya, kuwait, austria, and peru come to mind. But is there anywhere else in the world where attacks on US embassies are normal?

And is there anywhere else we have an embassy where there isn't actually a government? This isn't what our embassy staff people signed up for.

I expect they'll go, and I expect they'll get offered some special compensation for it. Meanwhile, their negotiations for compensation (and in this context it makes sense, doesn't it? You ask for your perks for serving in a war zone before you agree to do it, not after) generate all this outrage from people who have given no slightest indication they'd consider doing the work if it was offered to them.

What arguments are being made? Are we arguing about what to do about iraq? Who to vote for? No, we're just discussing who to be outraged about. Outrage is fun. I can be outraged at the diplomats or I can be outraged at the stupid people who're outraged at the diplomats. It feels just as good either way. When the topic is who to be outraged at, there's nothing wrong with a little tu quoque. Go spend a year or two being a target in iraq and I'll sympathise a lot more with your outrage at other civilians who say they don't want to go.

State wants 50 people and within days 15 had volunteered. I wouldn't be surprised if the requisite number of people volunteer, but they may not have the skills needed.

There seems to be a larger question here about the relevance of state and diplomacy in the world's hot spots. At least until a few years ago, the U.S. was closing, consolidating, shrinking its foreign embassies. Its foreign service was relocating to Washington DC. No intelligence assets in Niger.

I believe COIN doctrine holds that 80% of the effort is political and 20% military, but we have been spending close to 99% in Iraq through the military and 1% civilian. That doesn't mean the U.S. is not doing politics in Iraq, but it does mean that the political effort is largely military.

The importance of State has been shrinking since the founding, at a greater pace since the Cold War and probably increasing under Sec. Powell, who discovered that being the country's chief foreign diplomat meant never having to leave home.

If State continues to step back, Defense will continue to step up.

Actually, JT, it's more serious than that.

I have two problems with the State Department; the first, simply, is that they haven't been very good at their jobs in the last three decades. They haven't had enough local knowledge to understand or predict events, they haven't been able to successfully advocate the legitimacy of our interests abroad, and they have done an awful job of making our political leadership aware of the state of the world until events made things too obvious to miss.

Now many of those problems are institutional; I'm not blaming the people working there for them.

But it does also seem to have been a strange attractor (in the technical sense) for people who share the Michael Jennings view of things; that professionalism matters more than patriotism, and that the professional/information class is really more cosmopolitan than nationalist. I don't like that in my journalists, and I'm deeply concerned about it in my diplomats.

As to going to Iraq, the issue is simple; they took the job and signed the oath to serve. They either meant it or they didn't; if they didn't, they should resign.

We need a good and strong Department of State both to educate the world about us and us about the world. Do you think we have one?

A.L.

I see Grim is asking the same questions as me (and asking them better):

Juan Cole is starting an internet campaign to close the Embassy in Iraq, or, as he puts it, to "force congress to save our diplomats."

Save them for what?

That's a serious question. If diplomats aren't "for" helping to bring a successful end to a war their nation is fighting -- just what are they for?

Is State just for issuing visas from peaceful countries? Or is it actually about diplomacy?

Comments from the Sand

Ironically its the military that has had to step in and conduct most of the on the ground work we might expect State to be intimately involved in. And by the grace of god and the remarkable skill and devotion of our officers and enlisted men, they have succeeded on this front beyond anything that could be expected of them. It was local military leaders that made contact with the Shieks and resistance leaders and forged the Awakening together. If nothing else State should be focusing on the high level power sharing in the Iraqi government- remember the reason Iraq is still apparently doomed according to some? What progress have we seen on that front?

Maybe if you apply to the state department today you'll get to the head of the list. Maybe a lot of the guys who wanted to get in on that are having second thoughts about doing it in iraq, and maybe having to get evacuated by helicopter and all.

Maybe they'll make you chief of the DC Fire Department. Maybe all the other firemen are tired of going into burning buildings. If they get hurt, who's going to raise their kids? What if they have to take a helicopter ride to the hospital?

Maybe we should have a Department of Spoiled Mewling Pukes. I'll bet the list to get into that would be really long, though.

"Maybe we should have a Department of Spoiled Mewling Pukes. I'll bet the list to get into that would be really long, though."

OK< that was a good one.

#15 from Mark Buehner at 2:01 pm on Nov 02, 2007

The problem with the draft is that it is always billed to 'solve' problems we civilians have created politically. Once again, we cant act like grown up so the military will suffer for it. Their job is to be effective, not to assuage our egos about how and when we choose to fight.

I don't follow you here. how does it effect the citizen soldier concept that I was talking about. I am just asking. Or, are you making an entirely different point?

#22 from Joe Katzman at 5:23 pm on Nov 02, 2007

"Maybe we should have a Department of Spoiled Mewling Pukes. I'll bet the list to get into that would be really long, though."

OK< that was a good one.

I agree, but it would be chock full of Neo-Cons the minute they opened the doors.

"I don't follow you here. how does it effect the citizen soldier concept that I was talking about. I am just asking. Or, are you making an entirely different point?"

A drafted army will be inferior to a volunteer army, there is no getting around that. The military doesn't want it for any number of reasons, it certainly wont help them. Even if it kept us out of a war, any war we did fight we would risk losing, and that is unacceptable. The only argument for a draft is one that supposedly makes us more responsible civilians. IE, we have the problem, not the military.

A drafted army will be inferior to a volunteer army, there is no getting around that.

In what sense do you mean that, Mark? The drafted US armies of the Civil War, World war I, and World War II were highly effective at applying overwhelming combat power against their opponents. For that matter, the drafted US armies of Korea and Vietnam won most of their battles and would have crushed our enemies in both conflicts if our government had allowed them to.

Now, if you mean on a man-to-man or unit-to-unit comparison of quality, discipline, and aggressiveness, I believe you are correct. However, the scale of manpower resources you can mobilize and sustain with a draft means that you will almost always generate far greater combat power at the national level with conscription.

#25 from Mark Buehner at 8:09 pm on Nov 02, 2007

"I don't follow you here. how does it effect the citizen soldier concept that I was talking about. I am just asking. Or, are you making an entirely different point?"

A drafted army will be inferior to a volunteer army, there is no getting around that. The military doesn't want it for any number of reasons, it certainly wont help them. Even if it kept us out of a war, any war we did fight we would risk losing, and that is unacceptable. The only argument for a draft is one that supposedly makes us more responsible civilians. IE, we have the problem, not the military.

Well, that is an impressive number of absolutist statements in one short paragraph! I guess the discussion is over. Case closed. Although, I do think since we have the problem and we don't make good soldiers, why not opt for a military government?

A drafted army will be inferior to a volunteer army, there is no getting around that.

In what sense do you mean that, Mark? The drafted US armies of the Civil War, World war I, and World War II were highly effective at applying overwhelming combat power against their opponents

_____________________________________________________

What Mark means is that he is scared of being in the military and doesn't want it to happen.

Conscripted troops have served with distinction and valor in all of our countries major conflicts (and some minor ones too).

Young men - brave ones (not Mark types) - will adapt to training and will fight effectively regardless of the methodolgy of their induction because that is the nature of young men; particulary American young men.

Young men - again most, but not all - are concerned first and foremost about upholding their honor, about appearing courageous (even though numbly afraid) in front of their buddies, about upholding the honor of the their unit, etc...once the shit hits the fan the supposed motivation of believing in the cause counts for far less than some arm chair generals here want to believe. Things become very personal and personal attributes emerge to take control that have very little to do with political ideologies.

Most any young man can be converted into a warrior in 4 to 6 months time. In another 4 months he can become effectively trained in the use of special weapons and/or tactics. Another two months to enhance unit cohesion. Thus in 1 year a raw recruit can become an intergral part of a the US military combat arms; ready for deployment in a combat zone.

Don't need as large a number as a draft would supply? Then a fair lottery where Mark and AL and Cheney and Wolfowitz don't get to opt out on college deferments nd that sort of thing.

I am definitely for the draft.

The drafted US armies of the Civil War, World war I, and World War II were highly effective at applying overwhelming combat power against their opponents. For that matter, the drafted US armies of Korea and Vietnam won most of their battles and would have crushed our enemies in both conflicts if our government had allowed them to.

Must pick nits, must pick nits ...

The armies of the Civil War, north and south, were mostly volunteer. The draft was easy to evade and desertion was epidemic. Lying about your age to get into the army was also epidemic. According to legend, men from strict religious backgrounds would write the number 17 on a slip of paper and put it in their shoe. That way they could truthfully say "I'm over 17." Elderly men dyed their beards with shoe polish to get in.

The armies of the World Wars were heavily volunteer. Especially in World War II, where there were cases of men who committed suicide because they were denied enlistment for medical reasons.

The number of volunteers in Vietnam, especially minorities, is under-appreciated. The movies would have you believe that every black kid in America who couldn't get into college got drafted and sent to Vietnam. In fact, the majority of black soldiers in Vietnam were volunteers - estimates go as high as 70%, much higher than for whites. Volunteers included thousands of Canadians who served in US uniform - far outnumbering the American draft dodgers who fled to Canada.

The exact number of volunteers in Vietnam is impossible to determine, because of the practice of "volunteering for the draft". Instead of enlisting, people would ask their draft board to put their names at the top of the list regardless of their number - that way they only had to serve a two-year term, instead of the three they would have to serve if they enlisted.

Interesting stats there Glen. Any reliable cites o back them up?

BTW, tough freedom fighter that you are on key board, when are you going to volunteer?

At any rate, regardless, having served personally and having children currently serving and knowing some of their connections, etc I can tell you, on strong anecdotal evidence, that people often don't volunteer for the reasons you think they do.

Sometimes it's a breakup with a highschool sweetheart, sometimes it's a lack of employment opportunities, sometimes a thirst for adventure, sometimes a desire to test one's metal. sometimes a desire to be able to legally kill a man...........a few years ago payback for 9/11 factor heavily as a motvation (hell, I myself even tried to get back in for this) ........more recently Iraq is recognized by recruits and officer candidates for what it is; a colonial adventure unrelated to 9/11 and the boys really could care less about Iraqi "freedom" if it means their living in the dismal sandbox, getting shot at and not getting decent pussy for a year or so.

My experience parallels that of Avedis.

Sometimes it's a breakup with a highschool sweetheart, sometimes it's a lack of employment opportunities, sometimes a thirst for adventure, sometimes a desire to test one's metal.

Note that sometimes joining the Marines looks like a better alternative to suicide. People get into social situations with girlfriends etc where it looks like there's no decent way out; they don't think of just moving to a different community, getting a job, and making a brand new set of friends. But joining the military is a real alternative that they do notice.

I have the impression that in many arab countries joining the army isn't considered that alternative. And they recently have developed suicide bombing as an alternative to simple suicide that to my way of thinking isn't nearly as good.

Hey guys, you know what? I'm declaring Winds a 'chickenhawk meme-free' zone.

The next commenter who accuses someone here - or really, anyone - by posting the 'when are you enlisting' challenge will get some time in the 'away box'. I'm done with it.

Make arguments or sit down. I'm done with it.

A.L.

What's the argument here about embassy staff who're negotiating for higher compensation in what's got too be the worst diplomatic hardship post in the world?

Is there some kind of argument being made beyond "They're a bunch of nogoodniks because they aren't volunteering"?

Jack Croddy is a despicable, discraceful coward!
Fire him now.

AL writes:
I have two problems with the State Department; the first, simply, is that they haven't been very good at their jobs in the last three decades. They haven't had enough local knowledge to understand or predict events, they haven't been able to successfully advocate the legitimacy of our interests abroad, and they have done an awful job of making our political leadership aware of the state of the world until events made things too obvious to miss.

What they have been good at is obtaining patrons in foreign countries whose interests they represent well back in D.C.

From avedis -

What Mark means is that he is scared of being in the military and doesn't want it to happen.

BTW, tough freedom fighter that you are on key board, when are you going to volunteer?

I really, really hate to say it but you made some pretty good points which you immediately negated with this stupidity. I am glad Armed cut you off at the knees here.

I think the State Department is as deeply flawed as the intelligence community...

Yup, it has become a good old boys club of the worst type. It needs to be revamped. The tickets being punched from the ivy league for state dept berths need to be replaced by those from places like UT, Texas A & M and other institutions that really represent the real US. UNM, UW, places like that.

I have no intention of rising to such miserable bait, particularly rich coming from a cybertroll (the irony is thick). To respond to the earlier question- yeh you could argue that providing an overwhelming number of minimally trained targets is an effective method of producing overwhelming firepower. Im not sure that the dramatic increase in the number of US casualties implicit in that kind of warfare will make us feel morally superior. If there is one thing history has taught us, numbers count for much less than training and morale. Consciption has always led to poor morale and lax discipline in a standing army. Of course we could disband the army until wartime, and find ourselves once again in the dangerous situation of having virtually no professional military at the beginning of a conflict (such as both world wars, and certainly the ACW considering the levels of manpower eventually called for). Because we have survived such disasters in the past is hardly a ringing endorsement. We've been successful despite not having a proper standing army, not because of it. Many times its been a close run thing.

I do not think this is an either/or debate. I am not saying that we do not need a standing army nor am I saying that we should be "providing an overwhelming number of minimally trained targets is an effective method of producing overwhelming firepower."

I am saying that when we launch a major expedition like the one in Iraq, the draft should be re-instated, for any number of reasons including, but not limited to, those I mentioned above. It seems that you take some facts and make sweeping judgments. Their are downsides to what we have now. One being the "mercenary" corner that the State Department seems to have painted itself into.

I would say that the outsourcing of Military duties for 6 times the cost of it being done by the military is one of those things that look good on paper, especially financially, but have ramifications that were not thought through. One of them is this privatizing of the military seems to have produced the not very surprising reaction of collective bargaining in another professional area, the diplomatic corps. I expect that it will soon produce a call for collective bargaining in the military.

The linkage between the rise of paramilitary contractors like Blackwater and the State department completely escapes me.

The rise of such companies did not come about because of a lack of the draft, but because of the need to provide security in places and for organizations. Security that did not have the large tail that comes from deploying US military units. And providing security where the western nations could not politically deploy military units. No relation to the existance of a draft.

Lets leave out all of the other debates on Military Contractors (PCs) and focus on the linkage that you asked me to explain.

Traditionally, the jobs being done the PCs were done by the military. These jobs were outsourced to the PCs. On the face of it there were some good reasons many of them economic to do so. But in doing so, we blurred the line between what was a profession, soldiering for your country, and a contracting situation where the PC "soldiers", especially as independent contractors, negotiated for their higher pay. This, by the way has not eluded, our soldiers.

So the use of PCs doing traditional military work has put a value on that work which is higher than what we pay our soldiers. We have a volunteer army, which, one would assume, considering the advertisements the Army runs touting the economic incentives for voluntary enlistment, in part, at least, volunteers for economic reasons.

Now, in this situation, why would anyone volunteer for the army when they can get significantly higher pay by working and training for a company like Blackwater? Before you mention patriotism, one might argue, like the CEO of Backwater did that you are serving your country as a PC engaged independent contractor.

There is not a very big step to make for soldiers to begin organizing, as they have already in Europe, for pay comparable to that recieved by the PC contractors. By the way, I am not only talking about outsourced security roles, but clerical and potato peeling work that was done by soldiers. The most effective way to do this would be through collective bargaining. I would think that our soldiers would be dumb not to do it in light of the fact that the patriotic aspect of their service has been devalued by their own governments hiring of PCs.

Since that system has been put in place not only in the military, but in general by the outsourcing of all sorts of jobs that were done by government employees, port security being one that comes to mind, why wouldn't a union/employer relationship not begin to develop across the board in all areas of government. It is not like we don't have Government employee unions.

So picture yourself as a State Department employee sitting in a Humvee leaving the Green Zone siting next to a grunt who is guarding you. You understand that both of you guys are getting paid in part by the knowledge that you are serving your country, which makes up for the relatively low pay you are receiving compared to the private sector.

In scenario 2 you are sitting next to a Blackwater guy who is being paid 6 times what the grunt is being paid because of the hazards he is braving, which, of course, are no different than the hazards that you and the grunt are facing. So, why would it come as a shock that this sort of nonsense wouldn't give rise to collective bargaining.

Now, to get away from the stricture I made at the opening of this post, narrowing the debate, I would say this: There is just about nothing more PC (Politically Correct) than the use of the term Paramilitary Contractor. I think we all should have the gumption to call a spade a spade in this instance and call them what they are, mercenaries. I know this word makes a lot of people queasy, but I am not one of them.

The question of a draft is interesting. "The devil is in the details."

Israel drafts everybody -- absolutely everybody they can trust to fight. After they get out of their required service they're reservists and can expect to be called up in emergencies. It works for them. They can't possibly afford to keep a million-man standing army.

But we have a labor surplus. If we could get by with soldiers who'd be otherwise unemployed, then a large standing army wouldn't cost us much more than a lot of reservists. We'd lose their productivity in the underground economy, and we'd lose the difference between their pay and what some of them would get on unemployment insurance or whatever. Unfortunately, we need a lot of soldiers who'd otherwise be doing valuable work in the civilian economy -- but to the extent that we have more people with those skills than we need, it still doesn't actually cost us much.

It's bad politically for the USA to have a large standing army. But real unclear whether we have to. There's no substitute for victory, and so we do whatever it takes to win. Or whatever we think it takes.

Could we cut training time? Probably. A year is way too long. The slow training comes partly from the embedded idea that recruits' time is not valuable, which dates back to the draft and before that to our small peacetime standing armies. And also it might take a year for a recruit to really absorb the sense of being a professional soldier.

Could we do a significant amount of pretraining? Maybe. A few years ago I saw a big splash about the army putting out a small-unit video game that supposedly would teach players about small-unit tactics. It sounded good. I didn't play it and then I didn't hear any more about it. Something like that might have some value.

Our teeth-to-tail ratio keeps getting smaller, of necessity. We could make a point of how we're putting the slow learners into logistics. (The logistics could be partly set up like japanese factories -- a computer program tells you how to do each step of your job as you do it.) Put the guys who're preadapted into the combat units that get trained first. Put the others to work doing support, and train them for combat stuff as opportunity arises -- in case they get needed for that.

There are various things that might work to give us less of a standing professional army and still have a strong force when needed. But would you risk our army on some poorly-tested ideas, when we already have something that gets us victories? We might try a program of incremental change, try out each alternative on a small scale and then increase the scale if it works. In 50 years we might do much better.

Israel might not be the best example. They have 168,000 active duty troops for a population of 7 million (2.4% of the population). The US has 1.38 million active duty personel for a population of 300 million, (.5% of the population). Virtually the remainder of the nation is in the reserves. Israel is less a nation than an armed camp.

Twice in the 20th century the time required to call up Israel's massive reserve force nearly allowed the nation to be overrun. The Israeli experience in the last Lebannon war didnt leave a good taste in anyones mouth, but the part time troops called up to execute much of the ground mission didnt have the time, preparation, and in many cases equipment to do the job. Imagine being called away from you job and home and finding yourself on the front lines of battle within 24 hours. Psychologically there is no way these troops will fight as well as professional soldiers. Israel has certainly performed great martials feats, and their active duty troops are second to none, but again its dangerous to claim a policy as successful when wars are won in spite of them. Its also important to remember that Israel's active duty force of professionals is one of the larger in the world per capita. This isn't remotely what is envisioned by a US draft.

My name is Susan Manis and I am the Proud Army Mom of a U.S. Soldier in the 3ID/3-7 Infantry Division currently stationed in Iraq.
My son was recently deployed along with many other soldiers from Fort Stewart Georgia to serve a tour of 15 to 18 months in Iraq.
As I watched my son march away, the tears began to fall, and as I watched him fade into the morning sun, all I could do is yell �I Love You Nick�, and I soon realized that my son would soon be in a war zone. So much death, so much uncertainty lies ahead for our soldiers.
I stood there on the grounds of Fort Stewart watching as our husbands, wives, and children weep and cry as their loved ones marched away. The one picture that stood in my mind and does today is a young mother with a 4 month old little girl dressed in pink. She sat quietly on the sidewalk clinching her baby girl with tears streaming down her face as she watched her husband march away.
I am writing and sharing this with you because I recently read comments that were made by Jack Croddy.

"It is one thing if someone believes in what is going on over there and volunteers," he said, "but it is another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment.

If I am not mistaking Mr.Croddy knew what he was getting into when he took this position, he also agreed and took an oath to work any where in the country he was needed including IRAQ. I do not take kindly to a man who is willing to send my son as well as many other husbands, wives and children to war to fight for our country, yet he is not willing to do his job which may take him into the same war zone our loved ones are now in.

Who will raise our children if we are dead or wounded?"

This quote from Mr. Croddy is in my opinion selfish in every way !

It is ok for our loved ones to sacrifice their lives for you and your children and family, to leave behind their children and families to do a job they to signed up for as you did, but you can't?

I ask you Mr. Croddy do you know what it is like to sit by your phone and wait for that call from your son or loved one? Do you know how it feels to sit here day after day wondering if your son, daughter, wife or husband is alive? Do you know what it's like to see or hear a car pull up in front of your house, so scared to look out or answer the door for fear it is the Military coming to tell you your loved one has died in the line of duty?

I will tell you Mr. Croddy, it is pure "HELL"!

Day after day I sit here worrying and wondering if my son is ok, how he is doing, is he going to call or email today. As a mother I can tell you this is the hardest thing I have ever had to do in my life, is send my son off to war.

To read what you have said and quoted makes me angry and hurts more than you can or will ever imagine. To see someone like yourself so willing to send our loved ones into a war zone, and in some cases sacrifice their lives for our country, but you and so many others in Washington would not and are not willing to do your job if it takes you where our loved ones are today.

After reading what you have said I am so PROUD of my son, proud he is willing to stand up and protect our country and respect the job he chose to do Hes My Son My Soldier !

Sincerely,
Susan Manis
P.O. Box 2021
Pearland, Texas 77588

As an Army dad,Susan, I share your feelings...although my son is a ways away from being deployed.

A.L.

Our cowardly diplomats have the option to quit their jobs if they do not like their assignements. Not so for our fighting men and women. BOO HOO, they risk injury and perhaps even deathif they go over there. How the heck do you think our children who are over there fighting for your freedom feel???? It would have been nice if when they got their orders they could have said no I won't go, I might get injured or even killed. My Grandson is on his second tour of duty in Iraq. He was supposed to have gotten out last Feb. instead he was sent back to Iraq for another year. Then after he got over there, he was extended another 3 months. When He gets back to the States he will have to serve another 3 months before he can get his discharge. Even convicted felons get out once they have served their time. My Grandson has been married for two years, he has yet to be able to celebrate an anniversary with his wife, nor a Valentines day. He will miss her 21st birthday and another Christmas. For many of our BRAVE fighting men and women they are missing their childrens milestones. If our well paid cowardly diplomats don't want to do their jobs, do like Reagan did with the air traffic controllers. FIRE THEM ALL
I'm sure some of our soilders would volunteer to take their place and their salaries and their benift and retirement packages.

Our goverment is becoming the laughing stock of the world. It is becoming increasingly hard to be proud of our country. The American people are being sold down the river.