9.11.03
Of drafts and the Pentagon's preparation philosophy
So... we are supposed to believe that there aren't any real plans for a draft under way to provide more cannon fodder for Bush's imperial project:
Now compare this to the Pentagon's policy for dealing with the post-invasion Iraq:
Shorter Pentagon administration: Planning for the "unnecessary" - good; planning for inevitable - bad.
My mortal mind simply cannot deal with such administrative acuity.
So... we are supposed to believe that there aren't any real plans for a draft under way to provide more cannon fodder for Bush's imperial project:
Federal officials, falling in line behind President Bush and his official position, say there are no specific plans to bring back the draft but it's only prudent to have the plans and some of the people in place if it becomes necessary.Hmm... interesting: the Pentagon is making preparations for something that it says isn't likely to happen.
Now compare this to the Pentagon's policy for dealing with the post-invasion Iraq:
The Army, the report states, "did not have a dedicated plan to transition quickly from combat operations to SASO," military lingo for "stability and support operations." Commanders put a great premium on capturing the Baghdad airport but had no plan for how to occupy it or how to use its facilities to bring in personnel or materials that would assist in stability operations.So, in this instance, the Pentagon made no preparations for something it knew would happen.
Planning for postwar stability - also known as civil-military operations or CMO - "is part and parcel of warfighting in the 21st century," the report declares. However, it notes that, in preparing for this war, the Army's commanders "did not focus on CMO training."
Shorter Pentagon administration: Planning for the "unnecessary" - good; planning for inevitable - bad.
My mortal mind simply cannot deal with such administrative acuity.
