A war with Iran will require a draft

[bluestateguy]

In 2004 I predicted a draft if Bush won a second term. I am altering my prediction of a draft now. If there is no war with Iran then I think that we can continue to stumble along stretching the military thin with bullshit stop loss orders and avoid a return to the draft (the military is faking those reports of soldiers re-enlisting in droves). If this happens I will admit I was wrong about the draft (that's for all of you Freeper lurkers).

But if there is an Iran War then the draft will return. We'll be told it can all be done on the cheap (again) with air strikes and no ground forces. But Iran will fight back. They have a leader that is every bit as insane and fundamentalist as ours is and they will retaliate, and the situation will quickly escalate. Then more troops will be needed, and that will require a draft.

[titoresque]

1. I agree with you, also

I've thought too that we may see some sort of
9/11 here again soon so people will fall inline. I hope I'm wrong.

[rodeodance]

2. we will only have air strikes (no need for draft)

[leveymg]

9. If we bomb Iran, a draft will be needed just to maintain order at home

The second Iran learns that it's under attack, it will launch all of its chemical and biological warheads at U.S. and Israeli targets in the region. Israel will counter-strike with nuclear weapons, wiping out Iran's cities. That will trigger the generalized Middle East War and globalized religious struggle that every sane person has feared and tried to avoid for decades.

Within months, the worldwide economic and political disorder that results will plunge this country into chaos. The National Guard will be unable to do much. What's left of the Federal Government after the dirty bombs go off will have to declare a state of martial law, and impose a universal draft to reestablish order.

[H2O Man]

10. I think that

the idea behind air strikes is to be so devastating that Iran would be too intimidated (and damaged) to put up a fight. I am not convinced that this is the most likely outcome. An attack on Iran would set many other into play, and the tensions and violence throughout the Middle East would raise the likely need for significant increases in troop deployment. A draft would be a very possible unintended consequence of any military strikes on Iran. Hopefully, we will never find out.

[babylonsister]

3. I wonder just how many dead Americans will be sufficient for

these warmongers?

[Orrex]

4. What is your evidence?

(the military is faking those reports of soldiers re-enlisting in droves).

I don't dispute your claim, but I hadn't heard it elsewhere and wondered how you came upon it.

[Sammy Pepys]

5. There will be no draft...n/t

....

[genie_weenie]

6. Sammy Pepys is correct.

There will be no draft.

[ugarte]

7. A draft would absolutely kill the GOP in 2008

McCain and Frist et al won't let it happen.

[Kashka-Kat]

8. No need- privatized soldiers for hire + unlimited american $$ to spend

with no accountability or oversight whatsoever. Like the Iraq war, all expenditures off the books.

[NNN0LHI]

11. Yes you are correct, Sir n/t

[earthside]

12. A Draft to Fight WW3

Bush orders an atomic bomb strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Because he believes this will be so scary and so dramatic, the Iranian regime will fall. A pro-American government will take over in Tehran ... thereby solving the problem of where Iran's oil goes, Iran's nuclear program, and Iranian involvement in Iraq.

That's how war goes on the 'Big Rock Candy Mountain' fantasy-land that Bush and Cheney live in.

However, when in the real world Iran retaliates by stopping their oil shipments to the U.S and/or our allies, when Saudi Arabia gives into Iranian blackmail to either stop selling oil to the U.S. or get their oil depots destroyed by Iranian missiles, and when Iran sends teams into Iraq to slaughter U.S. troops --- THEN, there will have to be a draft to fight World War 3.

It will be too late, but by then Bush will probably be on the run in Mexico trying to evade mobs of enraged, murderous Americans.

[SnowGoose]

13. Nuke-less suitcase nukes.

The whole idea of "suitcase nukes" as I understood it, was that they were intended as the ultimate "plan B". We had the strategic triad (missiles, planes, submarines) so that no single technical advance by either side could completely upset the MAD balance.

The suitcase nukes were a last resort, in case one side was able to overcome the delivery systems of the other side - they were small and could be deployed in the other side's territory by an agent who could detonate the weapon.

The Iranian government may be crazy, but I doubt they're stupid.

They will likely have contingency plans in place along with agents already positioned to carry out the plans for retaliatory strikes within the US. But not with nuclear weapons.

I'm not going to say what they might do, but a few dozen people with the proper training and supplies could significantly disrupt life in this country. Listen if some schmuck like me can think of these things, be sure they can. Wouldn't *you* have such a plan if you were in their shoes?

On the other hand, one might have figured Saddam would have had similar contingency plans, but it didn't turn out that way. So that does not support my contention.

Hopefully sanity breaks out and we never find out if such plans existed or not.