I'm sick of writing about the US taking the most liberal of Middle Eastern states and turning it into the happiest haven for terrorists since Saudi Arabia blew up the World Trade Center. But this conversation was one that I think is worth reading, purely for it's rare no-BS reality check nature.
In previous entries I've broken down the numbers a bit and explained I think in fairly clear terms why a “draft” or some equivalent is going to be needed in order to sustain current US military loads — stretched thin doesn't begin to describe the problem. About a quarter of the US population supports a draft, but still, I think it's a not-so-unreasonable assumption that bringing back a draft could push the US population to the brink of revolt. John Perry Barlow recently shared a flight to Baghdad with the CEO of a “corporate security” firm (ie. mercenary) and this quote caught my eye:
Moreover, the "Coalition of the Willing" is increasingly less so. Many of our allies will be withdrawing after the elections in January. And even our own troops are becoming mutinous. The only way we will be able to maintain current force levels, already too thin by most accounts, will be through massive recruitment into the Army and Marines and, of course, hiring more rent-a-soldiers.
Massive recruitment isn't going to happen — applications to the US military are down by something like 30%. People don't want to be in the military. Rent-a-soldiers on the other hand are paid five to ten times as much as regular troops, put money into the corporate sponsors, and don't become the PR nightmare than thousands of dead and maimed lower income Americans is turning out to be.
So by having a “mercenary draft”, all the immediate problems get solved, and the right pockets get lined with cash in the process. Of course, the big loser is the American taxpayer, who's got to fund this whole mess. How long will it take?
Finally he pointed out that history provides a gloomy prognosis. "I can't think of a single case where a popular local guerrilla movement failed to defeat a conventional foreign occupying force," he said. "From the American Revolution through Viet Nam, the guerrillas always win. Usually, it takes them a long time and they suffer most of the casualties, but they win."
Well that's wonderful news for those of you who have invested in the defense sector; this war can keep on going as long as you can afford to pay for it. And guess what? There's no good exit strategy — the population is, by something like an 80% majority, leaning toward an Iranian-style theocracy… deeply opposed to the US and highly positive toward terrorists with targets lined up on the continental United States. And let me remind you — Iran may well have nukes soon.
What can you do about it? I've posted my solution here before, and have been laughed out the door, but the idea is starting to pick up some steam:
"Look," he said, "Saddam's been the only bastard mean enough to govern Iraq for any length of time. I'd hold him to a few conditions - no WMD's, no rewards to the families of suicide bombers, right of first refusal on Iraqi oil - then I'd tell him to go back to doing what he knows how to do. I mean, if you want a stable Iraq, he's a lot more likely to produce one than we are."
As he says, you got a better idea?
Post a Comment