Forgot to mention that the odds are on “P” Bush (GHWB’s grandkid) to win the GOP nomination in 2016.

The public never learns.

Remember back after The Gulf War Invasion when Bush 41 gave support to the Kurds and Shias to rise up against Saddam.

Bush 41 didn’t follow through and Saddam crushed them and massacred them.

Ironic how the same tendencies run in the same family.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 101

Rangel’s proposal has zero chance of passage. It’s not about the bill — it is about raising the issue of these wars being fought disproportionately on the backs of the disadvantaged, while the children of the wealthy and the powerful get a pass. And it is about calling the chickenhawks on the carpet — in Congress and in the Administration. Rangel is a vet, and he and a number of other vets in Congress have had enough of the pushing of additional wars without people fully understanding the full price that we pay for them.

This is about starting a conversation — not about any chance of legislative success — and it is being raised strategically at a time when the AEI is planting op-eds about bombing Iran. This is not a coincidence — Rangel is a smart cookie, and I’d bet he has some backing from other vets across the aisle in asking these questions. Miltary folks have had more than enough of the Bush idiocy.

I’m sure you’re right – it has no chance of passage at this point in time. I do get the point about the chickenhawks, and Rangel is obviously a very bright guy. But IMO it’s a poor (and rather cynical) choice of issues to raise WRT the current wars. The only reason Bush hasn’t committed more atrocities on the world stage is that he has run out of troops. He wouldn’t have that problem with a draft. Anything that validates the concept of a draft is anathema to those of us who value peace and personal choice (the “freedom” that we hear so much about until someone, say, actually wants the state to relinquish control of his/her body).

I take Rangel’s point to be many of the kids in the military did not have the freedom you speak of (how many had a real option to go to college or get a good job?). It is unethical for society to create such a significant lack of autonomy.

Not a chance of passage, but a great chance to have a conversation long overdue – can we get the child of a mill worker the same basic autonomy the child of a Brahmin has? You need look no further than the Boy King to see how far out of kilter things have gotten.

FWIW, I’d favor a two-year service option in return for meaningful education grants, with two caveats.

The term of service need not be military – AmeriCorp, Peace Corp, Katrina reconstruction,port and customs inspection,teaching, EMT, etc.

Congress explicitly and firmly reclaims constitutional control over war-making. Congress declares, President executes.

Lastly, if Dems are smart and control the apparatus, we can make damn sure the elite are proportionately represented in the ranks. Hows it going to look with the blogosphere, and then the MSM, screaming some captain of industry asked for a free pass for his kid? The MSM covered this BS up when it was the Boy King’s turn – I don’t see that happening again.

HotFlash at 123 — I’ve explained that about a bazillion times at this point, but let me try a simple way: you don’t railroad through an impeachent process, you build it. It was wrong for the GOP to do it during the Clinton years and just because you hate Bush with the same level of ferocity that Burton hated Clinton, it does not justify not following the process that the Founding Fathers set out from the start. You either follow the laws and the precedents or you throw them away, and frankly we have had quite enough throwaway behavior the last few years.

Yes, I know *you* have explained it to *me* a large percentage of those times, and I thank you for your patience :) But when I hear from the ones *we* elected to positions where they can do something about it, when I hear from *them* that impeachment “off the table” and there is a signed deal to that effect, I wonder. When I hear that voting against funding the war would be ‘not supporting the troops’. So many voters who sent a message’ re the War and GW — well, an acknowledgement from the votees would be reassuring. So far there’s lots of evidence of same as usual. Does one normally build an impeachment by announcing that one won’t consider impeachment? Politics is too strange.

Would Rahm and Chuck trying to claim all the political capital any part of the reason?

Who determines what is extremism, oppression and discrimination? The US? Which parts of the US? I have a family up the road where women are not allowed to wear pants, any monies earned outside the home have to go to the man of the house, no access in the home to any materials not approved by the father/husband. Am i justified in invading that house to liberate the women in the family (who are ok with their decisions)?

What if it was spankings. Beatings. Chaining. Not feeding. What if it was not feeding because there is no job? What if adopting a very strict fundatmentalist aspect allows the family to have a job, food, a roof? Am I justified then in breaking those bonds and “freeing” them from the repression and oppression, then walking away without leaving any other mechanism for food, water, etc?

What if culturally those I am “freeing” view forcing their woment to interact in the way we believe in society is oppression?

The “goal” of invasion/occupation can almost never, successfully, be the imposition of a wholly new culture on a resistant area. So any attempts to ‘libereate’ need to be preceded by a thorough study of the culture and history and by a study of the impact of military force on the area and how the imposition of military force will accomplish the goals. Does bringing ‘our version’ of what a country ’should have’ at the end of a assault weapon or in the remnants of a cluster bomb or the miscalculation of (or accepted collateral damage from) a ’smart bomb’ constitute the laudable goal of commiting all the resources needed to bring freedom?

We have little common history or culture with the Muslim countries we have invaded. But the pragmatics are not just a cynical overlay – they are integral to detemining not just whether goals can be achieved, but whether we can have any uniformity or overlap with “our” goals and the goals of the people we are imposing our goals upon.

Another element is at what point the commitment to overseas goals has such a significant domestic cost that it threatens oppression or insecurity or lessened freedoms at home. The “what does it profit-if” question.

Finally, the issues of whether military efforts are the correct option for working on mutual US/occupied country goals. Let’s say you take your dog to the vet because of a large and suspicious lump on its hip. The vet confirms cancer and recommends —- that they get a pistol and take turns shooting the dog in the hip until the lump is gone.

Laudable goal – getting rid of that cancer?

How many shots should they devote to the effort?

Never give up?

Does the dog get a vote?

Should they keep shooting at the lump even after the dog is dead?

Mere recitation of a goal in association with an activity (hey – look, the cancer quit growing when the dog died) doesn’t mean much.

IMO, Afghanistan is a different case from Iraq, although it is becoming less and less so, because it had many different elements, originally. Not because of large differences in ‘goals’. FOr one thing, the perception of almost everyone with respect to the “right” of the US to be in Afghansitan after 9/11 and Bin Laden’s protection by the Taliban, was completely different from Iraq. Any million person candle vigils worldwide against us going into Afghanistan? Those things DO make a difference.

Also, Afghanistan was being occupied at the time. The Taliban were by and large Pakistan and other foreign ex-jihadis that took control of a vulnerable country and assisted in the assassination of some of the country’s existing leaders. In addition, the poverty was so huge. HUGE.

It’s all too long to address, but the pragmatic reasons for being in AFghanistan vs. Iraq were very different. I think no amount of “better execution” would have made much difference in Iraq over the long haul, although it would ahve lessened the carnage. Afghanistan, though, had and may still have some possilities for positive outcomes. But it needs a top/down rework and much more commitment.

So I see Iraq and Afghanistan and come up with completely different stay/go; commit more/commit less goals (strategies, tactics) because the question isn’t so much pick #1 or #2, it is pick something with a chance of success – and that means study study study the options, culture, economics, dyanmics, geopolitics, geo-geo, etc.

fwiw ymmv