Column in NYTimesSelect Recommends Draft

[Rose Siding]

In order to, um, in order to avoid war with Iran.

I almost wish I could read the whole thing. Is the rest of it this funny?

Our last best chance, it says *snort* to avoid war with Iran? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh my, that's good. Is THAT part of the shiny new '06 Republican agenda? Reid, Pelosi and all the new committee chairs should go ahead pick out furniture for their new offices.

snipped from-

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/04/post_178.html#002067

WAR IS PEACE! Whoah . . . there's some crazy stuff lurking behind that TimesSelect subscription wall, notably Paul Kane's notion that "President Bush and Congress should reinstitute selective service under a lottery without any deferments." Why? Well, because if we do, "Iran's leaders and public will see that the United States is serious about ensuring that they never possess a nuclear weapon." This sounds to me like an excellent way to reduce the level of TAPPED content as Garance and Greg need to hold down the fort while Sam, Mark, Ezra and I go off to get killed, but it seems to lack other merits. Kane, however, says it "may be our last best chance to avoid war with Iran." To me, though, the last best chance to avoid war with Iran would be to not start a war with Iran. This thing about responding to Iranian peace overtures would be nice, but I think it's impossible to overstate the role that not starting a war with Iran plays in the Yglesias War-Avoidance Plan. Basically, if we don't start a war with Iran there . . . won't be a war with Iran.

Conversely, noted international relations scholars Outkast have observed that, in one's dealings with rogue states, it's unwise to make threats unless you're actually prepared to follow through (i.e., "Don't pull the thang out, unless you plan to bang / Bombs over Baghdad! Don't even bang unless you plan to hit somethang /Bombs over Baghdad!") on your threats. This is really the issue. Threats of force can be a useful element in diplomacy, and making the threat can avoid the need to follow through, but it's deeply, deeply unwise to go down that road unless you actually think it's a good idea to go to war if the threats fail to intimidate. Sending a giant conscript army to occupy Iran is a terrible idea. If you think our current troops lack the appropriate training for the occupation of Iraq, just wait until I'm the one doing it. Think about it.

--Matthew Yglesias

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/04/post_178.html#002067

[BrklynLiberal]

1. The Repukes would NEVER reinstate the draft. They would not want

their shiny white asses to have to be sent over to fight in any war.

Remember when REp. Charles Rangel tried to introduce reinstatement of the draft so everyone would have an equal investment in this war and maybe come to their senses? He was trying to DISCOURAGE the war! It went over like a lead balloon. As long as no one in the government or any Repuke had a kind in the military, they didn't care if we went to war.

[Ksec]

2. If they did, it would be a viet nam draft

where the wealthy and well placed could easily escape the draft by claiming bogus health problems (ass boils) or having Daddy pull some strings..

[mmonk]

3. Not to worry. It will end at some time

much like the USSR ended. We'll implode. Iran or maybe even Iraq will be our Afghanistan.