Daily Kos

RAND to seek ways to avoid draft

by kos

Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:59:09 PM PDT

A reliable source tells me that RAND has been contracted by the government to come up with a way to avoid instituting a draft, despite the desperate needs for more combat forces.

The solution? Outsource desk and logistics jobs to private companies while pushing those "chairborne" warriors out of their offices into fighting units.

Logisitic troops make up the vast majority of military personnel (somebody probably has the figure, but it's like 8-1 or 9-1 support to combat forces). The proposal would dramatically increase the number of fighting forces (though many of soldiers in support jobs will have no business being in the front lines), and the Haliburtons of the world would clean up taking over support functions.

One other thought -- female soldiers are generally relegated to non-combat support occupations. Would combat units be opened up to women in this scenario?

  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 327 comments

  •  The the talk about the draft (none / 0)

    the more who will join us in opposing this war,

    http://draftfreedom.org

    by Tom Kertes on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:45:13 PM PDT

    •  If they reinstate the draft, every incumbent (none / 0)

      republican will be voted out... and they know it!!!

      Confucius say: Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.

      by bluecayuga on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:50:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think so (4.00 / 3)

        It would be couched as a "dire need to defend freedom," excessive times require drastic measures - "look at all the car bombs today!" No, so long as Bob and Jane's kids can keep the SUV and not a Hummer, they'll be fine.  Just fine.  BTW, teenagers are much more likely to die when rolling an SUV than crashing a a Saturn.

        pith

        by moltar on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 02:05:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There will be a terrorist incident (none / 0)

          and they will use that to take "urgent national measures" - there will have to be something to spark it and provide the justification for the about face.

          by storme on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 06:25:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Scary as hell, but not unlikely... (none / 0)

            We've got to dump all over Bush if another major attack happens on his watch. He's done everything to incite terrorism and nothing to stop it.
            God damn the war-pigs!

            BTW: Two new photoshop cartoons on my badass blog:

            Rush Limbaugh and Daryn Kagan

            Condi and Bush

            by VisualPolitics on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 06:42:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Speaking of which... (none / 0)

            whatever happened to that terrorist incident lots of people were talking about that was going to happen in late October so that Bush could suspend the election and institute martial law?  Is this new terrorist incident being planned by the same people?

            by f1 dad on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 06:06:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  asdf (none / 0)

              suspension of habeas corpus, the use of torture by U.S. forces, our highest government officials defending the use of torture, background security checks on all citizens who fly: Paranoid fantasies just a few years ago.

              I don't think Bushco staged 9/11 but I do think they ran it as far as it would take them and I think they'll do the same if there is another incident.

              by storme on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 06:31:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  well, at least some . . . (4.00 / 2)

        "every incumbent" is probably an overstatement. Unfortunately, there are some parts of the country that are so red that Republicans would still win even if the Democrats nominated Jesus and the GOP nominated Satan.

        That having been said, yes, a draft would spell the end to a lot of Republican political careers.

        by pine on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 02:55:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Consider that we have all already been drafted.... (none / 0)

      .... not to the front lines for most but by conscripting the product of our labor. Consider the huge budget demand required to support death and destruction.  One of our most reliable exports, isn't it?

      "If a thousand men [and women] were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood."
      -Henry David Thoreau

      "Let them march all they want, as long as they continue to pay their taxes."
      -Alexander Haig, U.S. Sec. of State, June 12, 1982

      WAR TAX RESISTANCE has become the non-violent means for some to respond. Site links if you would like to investigate:

      http://www.warresisters.org/
      http://www.nwtrcc.org/

      NeverLoseHope

      Stand in the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls Jer 6:16

      by neverlosehope on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 02:26:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  question for Tom (none / 0)

      Tom, if a draft does happen or becomes imminent, do you plan on adding information to your website about options for draftees interested in leaving the United States?

      by pine on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 02:59:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  privatizing the draft (none / 1)

      will not end it. Condie Rice chaired rand. Rand subcontracted diebold. It's just a failsafe way to keep republiclown kids from serving the wars...

      Conyers is America's Conscience.

      by Mr Murder on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 06:15:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  RAND (none / 1)

        Could you please post links that confirm Rice's role in RAND? (My quick-and-dirty searches didn't satisfy.)

        My view of RAND has always been that they would pretty much do any research that you paid them to do, but would publish it after they were done whether or not you wanted that.

        Thanks, from the nearly computer-illiterate.

        And if you need anything...there's some ants.

        by Skipbidder on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 08:45:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Unless Condi had a sex change (none / 1)

        I think you're mistaken.  Donald Rice headed RAND, not Condi.  No relation between them, either.

        You'd find it a bit more fruitful to investigate Rumsfeld's connections to RAND, BTW.

        by modus potus on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 06:09:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  cost (none / 1)

    based on how much it has cost to hire contractors in iraq already, shifting significant logistical operations to private contractors should be nice and expenseive.

    by corndog on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:47:31 PM PDT

    •  Maybe the plan (4.00 / 6)

      all along has been to privatize the armed forces.  What the hell, they want to privatize everything else.

      "A time comes when silence is betrayal." MLK ...... The Green Knight

      by greenknight on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:49:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You just know (4.00 / 4)

        that they wouldn't miss an opportunity to throw more money Haliburton's way in Lootapalooza.

        When they say it isn't about the money -- it's about the money.

        http://firedoglake.blogspot.com

        by firedoglake on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:58:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not likely (3.66 / 3)

        There are definite advantages to having a public force.

        1.  You wouldn't be able to find enough mercenaries willing to go to Iraq.  Not Americans in any case.  They would have to offshore the operation.

        2.  You'd have to pay them a lot of money to do it.  

        The simple truth is that we sign our kids up with pictures of uniforms and discipline and send them to do things no one should do or would do for pay that doesn't match the sacrifice.  

        by ortcutt on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:00:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  American Foreign Legion (none / 0)

        like France has. I read Hackworth pitching this about 10 yrs ago.

        Some guy from Cambodia or Malawi joins, serves for 20+ yrs, gets his citizenship and a pension (well, a "private" account now).

        He wouldn't have any Congresspeople or a (American) family to raise a ruckus over poor equipment, training, or leadership. And it wouldn't be "our boys" dying over there. (wherever there wil be)

        "Can we all get along?"

        by hotspur on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 02:35:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you have too many of those .. (none / 0)

          you will have to face mutinees.

          May be you can have mixed companies with up to 20% foreigners. More than that, you are asking for trouble.

          As a resident of a low quality, insignificant state I need no president.

          by nataraj on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:07:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I hear Germany enjoyed great success... (none / 0)


             with its Rumanian (correct spelling, given the date, I believe), Czech, and other Balkan, Eastern and Southern European (ahem) "recruits" who fought with their German brethren against the Soviets in the early '40s.  Remember that?

             BenGoshi
            _______________

            "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

            by BenGoshi on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:18:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think ... (none / 0)

              things are very different now.

              There were a lot more Indians in the British army in India. But, that was because of the loyalty of people to the kings (you allied with the British).

              Now for eg., India has banned anyone from going to Iraq. So has Nepal.

              As a resident of a low quality, insignificant state I need no president.

              by nataraj on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:47:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your point is an interesting one... (none / 0)

                 ... my was mainly snarky and sardonic (or, at least, attempted to be such).

                  Actually, I was just (perhaps feebly) attempting to illustrate that when you have conscripts or, even mercenaries, fighting for causes and countries that they don't really believe in, the conscripting army is just asking for morale and disciplinary trouble, on top of true "will to fight" trouble.

                  So, it is indeed plausible that we could "outsource" even some of our combat capabilities, but that's begging for even more trouble and makes us look even more "Colonial" and "Imperial" than we already do.  

                  And if we "outsource" non-combat jobs (what?  logistical, I.T., transportation, K.P. for goodness sake?!) in war zones, well the intel breaches would be a nightmare -- just look what happened less than a month ago at that "field cafeteria" in Iraq . . .

                  Bottom Line:  Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their various hangers-on and neo-con tiny-little-brain trusters, have totally boned our military.  And our country.

                  BenGoshi
                _______________

                "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

                by BenGoshi on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 04:04:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  questionable benefit historically... (none / 0)

              just as a note to your statement:

              many people from eastern european countries did indeed join various divisions of German army or more likely SS; divisions from partner countries (ie rumania) did also fight alongside German units, HOWEVER, Stalingrad was encircled due to russian counterattacks on the flanks which broke through mainly rumanian held areas (because these areas were known to be significantly weaker) and thus led to the well-known military disaster from the German point of view.
              I´d also question the idea of "brethren", what do you mean by this?

              "Even a new day starts in darkness."

              by markbar on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 12:34:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  'Brethren,' 'comrades-in-arms,' whatever... (none / 0)


                  These were mainly forced conscripts and, for much or the most part, not "true believers," thus the term "brethren" was used sardonically.  You're over-analyzing, I think.

                  BenGoshi
                _______________

                "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

                by BenGoshi on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 03:13:07 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Plus... (none / 0)

      ...we've already been shifting those jobs out of the active military for years.  

      Furthermore, who wants to do the work unless they're under a no-bid contract and can pass all the cost overruns on to the government?  Why would anyone take a contract to work in Iraq if they have to meet a set budget, not knowing if things will get worse--and thus, more expensive--over the coming months.  

      Finally, the bigger problem that doesn't address is the material and equipment that's getting seriously degraded.  We've been raiding the reserves and the national guard for their equipment for over a year.  The equipment is breaking down and wearing out faster than it's being replaced.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by DHinMI on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:51:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (4.00 / 5)

        imagine these two scenarios:

        first - major portions of the logistical support in iraq are transferred to private contractors (who have to pay 10x military pay to recruit people).  then, as the situation in iraq degrades, the contractors refuse to fulfill their duties citing the danger to their employees.  combat units run out of food, ammunition, parts, fuel, etc.

        second - it seems like the majority of the logistical support i've read about (or at least a significant portion) is sub-contracted out to local companies, such as kuwati firms.  so, i can only imagine that that practice would increase dramatically under increased logistical privitization.  that would give a foriegn entity deep, intimate knowledge of and CONTROL over our supply lines.

        by corndog on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:00:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  With Both Scenarios... (none / 0)

          ...a major additional risk is that we increasingly rely on their equipment and material.  But if they pull out, then what happens?  

          It's like when local school districts have privatized bus transportation, sold off their bus fleet to save money, and the private company jacks up the price, but the cost of buying a whole new fleet of buses is prohibitive, so they end up paying the inflated price.  Net result, privatization ends up costing far more than keeping the operation in-house.

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by DHinMI on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:06:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Problems with contractors (none / 0)

        Plus it raises the problem that the military can't control the contractors as well.  Remember when Halliburton employees wouldn't come through with food rations for the troops?  That wouldn't happen when the Army did its own KP.  In a situation like Iraq, you can't just order private people to drive in unsafe convoys or deliver needed supplies to dangerous places.  If they refuse, what then?

        I've said it before, but privatization never works because in order to cover profits, the private company has to reduce the quality of the service or cut the pay of the workforce or both.The latter sooner or later leads to the former.  Plus you lose the protection against discrimination, and bad behavior.

        "Do not forget that every people deserves the regime it is willing to endure." ---The White Rose, 1942

        by Mimikatz on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:56:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Mosul cafeteria bombing (none / 0)

          If the military ran it's own kitchen's you would NEVER have centralized dining facilities like were bombed in Mosul. Force protection is first and foremost in every military mind. Contractors prize efficiency.

          I agree that this might the RAND solution may what BushCo. is planning but that doesn't mean it will work. Our intelligence is terrible and the only way to improve that is to buy off former Baathists (like Allawi). That inflames the whole region - Turkey and Iran are not going to let us do as we please indefinitely.

          "Nothing seems to embarrass the political class today." - Bill Moyers

          by joejoejoe on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 04:06:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Not just the materials (none / 0)

        There have been several articles shhowign that the death rate amongst reservists and guardsmen to be much higher than that of enlistees.They have also been getting crap material in comparison. Would expect a balloon of casualties almost out of the gate as desk workers are sent into the fray.

        by garfield on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 02:02:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  A draft wouldn't come cheap (none / 0)

      I can't even imagine what the cost of re-instituting a military draft would be.

      by Antioch on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:06:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  As a post down thread acknowledges, (none / 1)

      contractors have done logisitics for years (I was one of them at one point), but it has always been subject to the guidance of the military. With this proposal, the military will be in Iraq and contractors will be on their own. That's appalling.

      "conservatives are the worshipers of dead radicals".

      by gandalf on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:33:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If they're willing to privatize, they should first (none / 1)

      up the pay of a soldiers. say $50,000 and give the kids already in the army the compensation they deserve for doing Bush's dirty work.  

      Confucius say: Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.

      by bluecayuga on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:54:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Mercs are the only option. (none / 0)

      Costs will be paid for by taxing the occupied (which used to be known as rape and pillage in the middle age). Who needs RAND to find this out? It's all in the history book.

      by msl on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 05:26:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Have RAND Lead the Way... (none / 0)

        by drafting every able bodied RANDY employee. Send them as the RAND Gruppen to Irand (get it?)to implement, finally, one of their "scenarios". Use RAND IN IRAND as a test run for creating the Heritage Brigade, the Cato Division, the Limbaugh Liberators, etc. Follow the Sec Def's, you fight with the Army you got principles. Daily Kos will provide "metrics" for their levels of success.  

        Live Free or Die Bold

        by vetfordean on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 10:48:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  One of the reasons that the right (none / 0)

    will not want to use a draft is to avoid the very high economic costs of a draft.  The opportunity costs are high, since it does not take into account economic factors.  While I oppose the draft for moral reasons, it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

    It's interesting that there is a realization that the army needs more troops.  For how long will be at war?

    by Tom Kertes on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:47:57 PM PDT

    •  that is not so clear: (none / 1)

      Here is what my point was:

      The opporunity costs are high because the labor market has assignment based on non-market forces (ie "random" draft assignments).

      One of the reasons for college deferrments is because of the opportunity costs of having college-able students in war and not in college gaining human capital.  (I don't like this, but this is how economists view the issue, and is one of the reasons for why there are deferments.)

      by Tom Kertes on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:50:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  but this time (none / 1)

        If they reinstate the draft wont it be where there are no deferrments for college students? Another difference would be that rather than just young men being drafted, like during Vietnam, women would also be subject.

        Im against it for moral reasons as well. They shouldnt be able to make you fight an illegal war that you dont agree with. If this was actually a war of self-defense, or defending the world in any way, like they claim, they wouldnt even need a draft.

        In WWII, they had boys lying about their age to get into the army ...

        I dont believe that that generation was just more responsible and/or selfless. I think they just actually believed in what we were fighting for.

        These days that's obviously not the case.

        by stonellectual on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:01:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Can't make you "fight" (none / 0)

          They shouldnt be able to make you fight an illegal war that you dont agree with.

          but they can make you serve.  CO status will remain available.

          What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

          by Marie on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:07:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  good point - I think that (none / 0)

          the case against this war is quite strong.  That's one reason to focus on the specific immoral aspects of this war (opposed to on all war).

          by Tom Kertes on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:09:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Would it be (none / 1)

          There really are not any current regulations.
          Perhaps women would be drafted.

          In my opinion, the difference between red-state army bigotry and normal American attitudes toward gays is such that until they end the regulations banning gays the draft will fail, becaue a large fraction of young American men will suddenly discover their other half, or so they will say.  The people who join a voluntary army may not contemplate this as witness the 'gay aphrodisiac bomb' reported a few weeks ago, but for a alrge aprt of the rest of the population there is a nonissue.

          Privatizing the supply forces might have worked in Vietnam, but in Iraq there are no safe places. Westmoreland had an office a modest number of feet from a major street, with a window; if the American governor-general of Iraq tried this, he would rapidly become deceased.  Indeed, one supply convoy in four is now attacked, and that number may climb.

          Had enough yet?

          by phillies on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:14:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  women won't be drafted at first (none / 0)

            We have the Selective Service set up and all men 18-25 (not sure about the 25?)are required to be registered. So the draft is all set up. Women are not registered currently so they wouldn't be drafted at first. Women could be added to selective service later but politically that would really not fly. Try telling all gung ho  "Nascar Dads" that not only is your son being sent to Iraq (and/or Iran) but your 18 year old daughter as well.

            by friendofliberty on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 02:22:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If you want to see women fight.... (none / 0)

              start drafting their sons AND daughters for combat.Women are geared to fight for one thing more than any other and that's to protect their children! The "mother bear syndrome" would be in full effect!Bring it on Bush and Repubs!!I dare you to even contemplate it!

              by crazymom on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 06:47:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  What about the Reserves? (none / 0)

      Think about the opportunity cost of calling up tens of thousands of reserves.  

      by ortcutt on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:02:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Probably has something to do (none / 0)

      with IRAN! Now the scoop is that there is an invasion on the horizan for Iran. Cannot sustain both on the level of troops in the ranks today!

      by LucyTooners on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:54:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We would need at least 1 million ground troops (none / 0)

        Given Iran is almost 3 times as large as Iraq and our own troop strength in Iraq is short by a factor of 2 - 3, we would need at least 1 million troops in Iran, which would require 10 million support and 2 million troops for rotation or 4% of our population. That is completely unsustainable.

        Do Pavlov's dogs chase Schroedinger's cat?

        by corwin on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 02:28:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Balkan intervention (none / 0)

          We fought the Serbs in the Balkans without any ground troops. It was an air campaign almost entirely. The Admin will justify the same tactics in Iran, saying that we're taking out possible WMD sites. Rummy has to know that any kind of ground campaign would be impossible right now.

          To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

          by meade on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:20:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Old Serbia fragmented (none / 0)

            after the war - - you know "balkanized" - - when we knocked off Slobo. Kosovo, Bosnia etc. . . took an independent road.

            Iraq threatens to do that. Sunni, Shia, Kurd.

            Would air strikes and mullah whacking "balkanize" Iran? I do not know.

            by BlueSpace on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:41:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  If there's an air-only campaign against Iran... (none / 1)

            ...Iran will just invade Iraq.

            Unless we completely pull out of Iraq (and Afghanistan too), there is no way not to get into a land war with Iran after launching airstrikes against it.  This doesn't mean that Bush isn't stupid enough to try this.

            by Geotpf on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:54:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Two interesting social experiments (4.00 / 3)

    a) will this force the military to put women in combat posisitions?
    b) will the realities of war force them to abandon don't ask, don't tell for a policy of we see you, but we need you?

    by bruh1 on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:49:05 PM PDT

    •  Conservatives kill to avoid change (none / 0)

      They're already looking to tighten the anti-gay policies in the military.

      Women in body bags? Don't wait for the Pubs to initiate that, unless there's money to be made by doing so.

      Watch out for the giant ground sloths.

      by cskendrick on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Already (none / 0)

        There are already women in body bags.  You don't need to put women in combat duties for them to die.

        by ortcutt on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:06:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, one does not (3.71 / 7)

          Regardless, imagine the politics.

          On the one hand, you now have to sell your war to parents with daughters, as well as with sons.

          You have to consider that any draft, due to nondiscrimination laws, will call on young women as well as men.

          Then there is the edifice of cultural totems about martial virtue, manliness, value, courage -- supersaturated with testosterone and implicit displays of male supremacy.

          Now give a girl a grenade launcher. Place her fit, agile, limber, smaller profile in the theater of combat. She's harder to hit, and due to half a million years of successful childbirth by her foremothers, she's more likely to survive a bullet or fragment wound than a man if she is struck. She can take cover more easily, find cover more readily. Since she's a woman, she pays attention to her surroundings with a diligence that escapes men, who do not grow up worrying about attacks in the same fashion that women do.

          And when an enemy attacks her, well, she's got a gun now. And pals to back her up.

          Short form: Women in the modern battlefield may not only perform comparably to men; they may surpass them.

          The only aspect of warfare in which women may be at a disadvantage is ability to carry heavy loads for long stretches on foot, but again -- when is the last time a battle was decided by long-distance runners?

          Tactics and doctrine to take advantage of the relative strengths of women and complement relative weaknesses will be different.

          The only reason women traditionally aren't in the battle-lines is that traditionally, they were either pregnant or vulnerable to having such an event occur at the hands of an enemy tribesman...which was an unacceptable risk to primitive man.

          Things have changed somewhat in the past several thousand years.

          I'm thinking the Amazons have come.

          But I do not think the sociological implications are something that the Pubbies are prepared.

          I think the Pubs are highly focused on the short-term, as they are fearful of their worldview having a short shelf life.

          Watch out for the giant ground sloths.

          by cskendrick on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:23:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  stereotype people much ??? (none / 0)

            Now give a girl a grenade launcher. Place her fit, agile, limber, smaller profile in the theater of combat. She's harder to hit, and due to half a million years of successful childbirth by her foremothers, she's more likely to survive a bullet or fragment wound than a man if she is struck. She can take cover more easily, find cover more readily. Since she's a woman, she pays attention to her surroundings with a diligence that escapes men, who do not grow up worrying about attacks in the same fashion that women do.

            What the fuck ???

            Are you trying to say that ALL WOMEN are smaller than ALL MEN ???

            would you care to present some Scientific Evidence for that stereotypical assumption

            for the record, personal survival in combat is the results of mental ability, not physical size

            by knowthings on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:52:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Mental trumps physical in modern combat (none / 0)

              I believe I said that.

              Prejudice

              Demeans us all.

              Watch out for the giant ground sloths.

              by cskendrick on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 02:06:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Generalizations (none / 1)

              "Are you trying to say that ALL WOMEN are smaller than ALL MEN ???"

              Women are generally smaller than women. That's not a stereotype and doesn't reflect on the value of women in any way.

              by RatIV on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 02:13:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Statistical variation (4.00 / 2)


              I'm fair certain that the average mass of a human male far exceeds that of the average female.

              Since the density of human flesh (muscle-fat ratio) cannot be graded across gender with any confidence, I treat that as constant.

              A sample of significantly more massive persons takes up greater volume than one of less massive persons.

              In a world where the speed of bullets exceeds the speed of humans by a factor of 100+, the relative advantage of speed between male and female samples (and variance within said samples) is negligible. A person capable of running a 10-second 100-meter dash (as opposed to a 15-second one) does not impress a projectile that can cross four miles in the same span of time.

              Thus, the chief factor in avoiding being struck by a bullet is smaller target size (hey, lower-limit male outliers are perfectly acceptable; lower-limit female outliers are superb), (b) ability to find cover (across a normal distribution of cover of various sizes, a smaller person is at an advantage).

              Original purpose of discussion

              Was to discredit putative disadvantages of women in a modern combat context, and avoid the Heinleinian pitfall of overly superlative stereotype in the process.

              What scientific refinements to my discussion can you offer? I would like to produce a better product in my postings.

              Watch out for the giant ground sloths.

              by cskendrick on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 02:16:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Physical Differences (4.00 / 3)

                Thought this might interest you ....

                From the United States Military Academy site:

                1. The average 18- year-old man is 70.2 inches tall and weighs 144.8 pounds, whereas the average woman of the same age is 64.4 inches tall and weighs 126.6 pounds. This difference in size affects the absolute amount of physical work that can be performed by men and women.

                2. Men have 50 percent greater total muscle mass, based on weight, than do women. A woman who is thesame size as her male counterpart is generally only 80 percent as strong. Therefore, men usually have an advantage in strength, speed, and power over women.

                3. Women carry about 10 percentage points more body fat than do men of the same age. Men accumulate fat primarily in the back, chest, and abdomen; women gain fat in the buttocks, arms, and thighs. Also, because the center of gravity is lower in women than in men, women must overcome more resistance inactivities that require movement of the lower body.

                4. Women have less bone mass than men, but their pelvic structure is wider. This difference gives men an advantage in running efficiency.

                5. The average woman's heart is 25 percent smaller than the average man's. Thus, the man's heart can pumpmore blood with each beat. The larger heart size contributes to the slower resting heart rate (five to eightbeats a minute slower) in males. This lower rate is evident both at rest and at any given level of submaximal exercise. Thus, for any given work rate, the faster heart rate means that most women will become fatigued sooner than men.

                6. The lung capacity of men is 25 to 30 percent greater than that of women. This gives men still another advantage in the processing of oxygen and in doing aerobic work such as running.

                However,

                1. Women generally are more flexible than men.

                2. A woman's response to heat stress differs somewhat from a man's. Women sweat less, lose less heat through evaporation, and reach higher body temperatures before sweating starts. Nevertheless, women can adaptto heat stress as well as men. Regardless of gender, soldiers with a higher level of physical fitness generally better tolerate, and adapt more readily to, heat stress than do less fit soldiers.

                by RatIV on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 02:32:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  On average (none / 0)

                  There may be only 10% (pulling numbers out of thin air) as many women who are qualified to be soliders as men.  However, those 10% are just as qualified as the men.  I can think of few reasons, beyond traditional gender roles, why women should not be in combat, provided they meet the same standards that men do.

                  by Geotpf on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:01:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  hmm (4.00 / 2)

                  points 5 and 6 seem to indicate, rather strongly, that women, on average, have a significantly smaller cardiovascular system.

                  but my guess is that they are playing with the way they use numbers - they're using absolutes to make a relative comparison.  that is, the statement that women's hearts are 25% smaller than men's is misleading because per point 1, women are 13% smaller than men.  so, of course their hearts and lungs are smaller.

                  a more interesting statistic would be show the data for oxygen uptake in the lungs and other data regarding efficiency relative to men.

                  by corndog on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:06:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  feh (none / 1)

              He addressed the mental issue, knownothings. Please crawl back into your hole.

              by panda boner on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 08:43:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Interesting thought experiment ... (none / 0)

            but I think you underestimate the extent to which women are physically slower and weaker. For a pilot, this may matter less. For infantry, this matters more. While the military can devise different tests to measure strength for training purposes (by substituting the flexed-arm hang for pull-ups, for example), the battlefield often refuses to make such concessions. The wounded soldier who needs to be dragged to safety weighs the same whether the soldier doing the dragging is a hero or a heroine.  

            by RatIV on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 02:10:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Real examples of that (none / 0)

              Female firefighters.

              Here's the thing: the average male is better suited to that sort of physical activity than the average female.  No question.

              However, go to the upper end of the curve.  Absent artificial assistance (or a lot of intentional breeding), the best female weightlifter is not going to be better than the best male weightlifter.  And there will be more male weightlifters at her level than there will be other females.  Still, that female will perform better than a whole lot of males, perhaps even most of them.  

              Any number of women weightlifters and bodybuilders, or general fitness freaks can bench more than I can--perhaps not as much as I might be capable of, but that's irrelevant in the here and now.

              So while there might not be many, there are women strong/resiliant/whatever enough to perform perfectly adequately as firefighters, or as soldiers.  A blanket ban prevents them from filling a role they are perfectly capable of filling.  I've served with both female soldiers and female firefighters and in each case there were some who I'd trust, in the purely physcial sense of being able to do their job, more than some of the males, said males never having someone question their physical fitness to do the job.

              The other reality is that not all jobs in the military, even in the same occupation, are really equivalent.  You're not going to have the smallest guy in the unit carry the light machine gun and ammo belts while the physically largest is the one you tap to crawl into small openings for a recon unless you really have to.

              I might not ever expect to see a woman in an Abrams as a loader, but I have no problem imagining one as a gunner on an APC, or a sniper.  

              Matter of fact, I know of a few female combat engineers serving with the Canadian Forces, and anyone who says combat engineers have it easy physically compared to the majority of combat occupations are clearly smoking something.

              by Northwatch on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:51:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Reminds me (4.00 / 2)

                All this talk of women in the military reminds me of the team obstacle courses we completed as part of our annual training in the ARNG.

                Back then, I was all of 115 lb (sadly, no more) and 5'3".  I could have been seen as a liability in many situations.  I was quite fit, but not nearly as strong as most of the men.

                Yet, during these team obstacles, I was often an asset.  The groups with three burly men had a lot of trouble with the excercises.  The groups with a mix had far more success.  

                I fit nicely into tiny tubes and tunnels, could be easily lifted over walls, but I was still strong enough to give a 200+ lb man a boost or to carry some cargo.

                You use people where they are best suited, and a mix of size and talent works best.

                Thanks for pointing that out.

                My side of adoption.

                by Poor Statue on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 06:41:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Interesting observation (none / 0)

                  That, when I was in officer training in the Canadian Forces, one of the training sergeants pointed out to me when the subject came up.

                  For the field exercises that we had to do, sometimes there was heavy lifting involved or moving stuff on the part of the officer cadets playing the ordinary grunts for that exercise.  It was his experience, he said, that if stuff had to be moved that was reasonably heavy (but still manageable), the male OCs would tend to each grab one and move it.

                  The female cadets would often work in teams (since, on average, they weren't as strong as the males).  If there was only one or two women, they'd team up with a guy.

                  The result was often that, when you looked at the overall result, there wasn't a difference in the time it took to complete the task.  The people working in teams would have to make more trips, but they tended to make them faster.  And with two people, the load was more stable.

                  Put simply, you can move faster carrying 25 kilos than you can carrying 50.

                  Then, of course, there were military situations that we were in where the small light person was, as you pointed out in your example, an important asset.

                  by Northwatch on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 08:22:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Thank You (none / 0)

            for posting this.

            My side of adoption.

            by Poor Statue on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 02:49:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You miss THE point -- (none / 0)

             -- will Jenna and Not Jenna ever participate in a nighttime patrol of Fallujah?

              Hmmmmmmm . . . I don't think so.

              BenGoshi
            ________________

             

            "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

            by BenGoshi on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:21:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  How about an all gay army division (none / 1)

      sort of like the Tuskeegee airmen.

      I'm being sarcastic, but sadly it might be the only way you'd eventually "integrate" the military.

      by Steve G on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:06:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gays welcomed in WWII (none / 0)

      Until it bacame clear we would win.  Then they began the purges of both men and women.  

      "Do not forget that every people deserves the regime it is willing to endure." ---The White Rose, 1942

      by Mimikatz on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 02:01:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gays welcome (none / 0)

        My late father was a physician.  From 1945 or so until he decided he disapproved of the War in Vietnam, he did physicals for the draft boards.  There were no regulations that were enforced about drafting gays into the military until the later 50s.

        Had enough yet?

        by phillies on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:45:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Corporate Not Social Experiment (none / 0)

      As we move into privatizing some aspects of combat, it'll be a simple business decision whether & where to use women in combat. That could never become a social issue for the right.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 02:07:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Um: on women (none / 0)

      the only place women aren't allowed is the infantry.  There are other combat positions.

      I'm a woman.  I was an MP in the ARNG.  We called it the glorified infantry and we all knew we'd be the first to get called up.

      Am I missing something here?

      My side of adoption.

      by Poor Statue on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 02:45:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  do you get to go to the front line and get shot (none / 0)

        at like the guys? if so and there is no difference that's surprise and must have occured on the DL at some point that I didn't hear about?

        by bruh1 on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:04:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, yes (none / 1)

          War has changed a bit.

          We dig foxholes and secure perimeters, and do route recon, and are the first ones in to clear areas, and all that good stuff.

          The way the comments here sound, you might think that women can only be found in the hospitals tending wounds.

          Last I checked, we were in the line of fire with the rest of the soldiers.

          Keeping women out of the infantry is more of a formality these days when you look at what everyone actually does.

          For the record, I was such a good shot that my nickname was Killer.  I'd say sitting in a turret with an M-60 or an M-50 or a saw puts me in the line of fire.

          My side of adoption.

          by Poor Statue on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:38:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  interesting i didnt know that (none / 0)

            by bruh1 on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:41:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  all my relatives in the military are male (none / 0)

            so i never bothered to ask them about women- guess i should have

            by bruh1 on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 03:41:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yep (none / 0)

            I saw female MPs all the time up my side of the 49th parallel.  There was a comment I saw back during Desert Storm that the number of women playing that role in a combat theatre was really exposing the stupidity of the blanket rule.

            I do note that there's been a remarkably abrupt change on the part of the US military, or at least how it's perceived, when it comes to women in combat roles.  In 1995, the premiere episode of "JAG" dealt with female pilots on a carrier and the hassles they had trying to do their job.  Within a few seasons, you'd see female pilots on the show as a matter of course and no big deal was made about it.

            Now, you might talk about how that's fiction, but look at coverage from 2003 during the Iraq invasion.  There was one flurry of reports about, I believe, some A-10s that had taken some relatively serious damage but came back to base.  One of the pilots involved was a woman.

            In just about all the coverage, the fact that she was a female combat pilot wasn't considered a huge deal, as opposed to being a combat pilot who'd just been through a tough scrape.  No philosophical discussions about women in combat, no background on the unlikely path she'd travelled.  The fact that she had different primary and secondary sexual characteristics from the stereotypical fighter jock was considered barely noteworthy.

            My personal opinion is that a lot of that acceptance is based on popular entertainment.  These days it's noteworthy if you have some kind of action movie, television series, comic book or whatever where there isn't at least one female character with an advanced degree in ass-kicking.  

            My generation and younger, the men in their early 30s, have grown up with Ellen Ripley, and Sarah Conner.  We've seen a scrawny blonde named Buffy lay waste to stronger opponents.  Those who read comics have seen it become realized that Susan Richards, the former Invisible "Girl" is considered the real powerhouse of the Fantastic Four and someone so strong that she can easily take on multiple opponents who each could crush buildings, and that Wonder Woman gives Superman a run for his money.  We've watched Xena take names, seen Bond women like Michelle Yeoh be just as skilled as he is and not have to rely on "feminine wiles" to get by.  We've seen women as cops on patrol dealing with the same problems and threats as men, and women in horror movies who stand and fight instead of running away to trip in their high heels.

            And I really think all that has had an effect, however subconscious it might be.

            by Northwatch on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 08:55:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  do you get to go to the front line and get shot (none / 0)

          Uh, you bet your ass.  I'm female and my MOS was Combat Switching Systems Operator (no longer in existence, tyvm) and we were in the field 24/7 supporting whatever battalion we were assigned to.  

          I prefer this brand of Socratic inquiry, actually: WTF is wrong with you?

          by lightiris on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 05:33:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely true (none / 1)

        My MP platoon had women in the turretts as we patrolled Baghdad's streets.  We were called the "Mobile Infantry" or "Infantry with a Badge".  And if patrolling, running checkpoints, clearing buildings and escorting convoys through IEDs and enemy fire isn't combat...

        "The truth is only an excuse for a poor imagination"

        by las casas on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 04:44:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I was in the Signal Corps (none / 0)

        in the ARNG.  The infantry can't do squat unless they can communicate.  Gee, what is it they say about vulnerability?  Supply and communications?  Women are in both.

        I prefer this brand of Socratic inquiry, actually: WTF is wrong with you?

        by lightiris on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 05:30:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  asdf (3.75 / 4)

    For historical reference our actions in Viet Nam were a ratio of 11 support to 1 combat.

    Be proud. YOU'RE A LIBERAL.

    by changingamerica on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:49:52 PM PDT

  •  What combat units be opened up to women? (none / 0)

    Uh..."comfort" units?

    Stories of people forced to serve as "comfort women" for the Japanese army during WWII...

    by Dork on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:50:10 PM PDT

  •  Declare victory and pull out of Iraq (none / 0)

    That's one solution.

    Investigate War Lies --> Evidence for Senate Conviction --> End the War. Got it?

    by bejammin075 on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:51:11 PM PDT

  •  Coming soon: a coporate army (none / 1)

    Halliburton (and others) will field their own divisions of combat soldiers.

    "Funny, you don't look blueish."

    by old school lefty on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:51:18 PM PDT

  •  Start Spinning Now! (4.00 / 18)

    I think part of RAND's strategy is to start spinning the war a lot better.  Instead of "casualties", RAND will recommend that the administration start referring to the soldiers being converted into "freedom chunks".

    Good lord, someone please get these kids out of that hellhole.

    by Avian on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:51:20 PM PDT

  •  protest record (none / 0)

    Okay, I guess it's time to start building up my toddler son's protest record, so he can establish CO status, because clearly this dreadful war is going to go on FOREVER!

    There is no permanent peace without permanent war.

    "War and drink are the two things man is never too poor to buy." William Faulkner

    by landismom on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:53:55 PM PDT

  •  Gah. (none / 1)

    I don't like it when Kos starts using the phrase "a reliable source".

    Find out the latest in the global warming fight at Wonk Room!

    by The Cunctator on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:56:10 PM PDT

    •  What if someone (none / 0)

      whom you trusted told you something that the Kos Kommunity would find valuable, but if you revealed that someone's name, they would be in trouble (i.e., lose their job or get arrested ...)?

      Of course, anonymous sources can be abused, etc., but without them, we would be completely in the dark ...

      "Funny, you don't look blueish."

      by old school lefty on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:03:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ideally (none / 0)

        Ideally you get your source to a journalist who can publish the story for you to talk about. I think it's the phrasing "reliable source" more than the reliance on an anonymous tip that galls me. Kos makes such a big deal about not being a journalist that I find it odd when journalese enters his vocab.

        "Reliable source" and "unnamed official", etc., are just ways of putting lipstick on the pig named Rumor.

        Find out the latest in the global warming fight at Wonk Room!

        by The Cunctator on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:42:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  In Iraq (4.00 / 4)

    a lot of so-called logistical support troops are now playing the role of combat troops.  

    Logistical support is not just the "desk jockeys" but also the supply people, medical people, truck drivers, etc.

    Many of those who are targeted by the insurgents are these people, thinking, rightfully so, that they are the least trained in actual combat tactics.

    They are pulling people out of those areas to operate as snipers, observers in combat areas, etc.

    Even more so than in Vietnam, there are no safe areas for the troops.  Virtually any area in which there are American troops is hit daily with mortars.

    Source for above is an Army officer who I will not name, but knows what of he speaks.

    All in all this becomes a windfall for companies such as Halliburton, but they may also find their recruitment levels hard to reach if this goes on much longer.

    Bush, so incompetent, he can't even do the wrong things right.

    by JAPA21 on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:56:44 PM PDT

    •  Agreed (none / 1)

      I was thinking the exact same thing.  The insurgents target civilians.  I realize for enough money some people will take any job, but that is not an inexhaustible source either.  My roommate was offered a HUGE sign-up bonus if he agreed to go over to Iraq to repair tanks, etc.  He is one of the best large-equipment mechanics in the world, and is ex-Army.  As much as he loves money, he said no.

      "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine 4080+ dead Americans. Bring them home.

      by Miss Blue on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:04:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The primary solution is obvious (4.00 / 3)

    Mercenaries

    There's no reason that imperial wars need to be fought by imperial citizens.

    The Pubs will love it, especially if surviving soldiers are awarded citizenship and inclined to vote Republican afterward.

    And if the ethnic or cultural makeup of the prospective citizens is unappealing to Pubs, there's always the tried and true option of extending the tour of duty ad infinitum.

    Possible first choices by the pubs

    1. Australians
    2. (white) South Africans
    3. lighter-skinned South Americans
    4. Europeans with impeccable anti-Muslim credentials; Slavs, especially Southern Slavs such as the Serbs and Croats, will do nicely.

    B-team

    1. Indians
    2. Armenians, Georgians and other (real deal) Caucasian Christians.
    3. Israeli settlers, looking for new digs.
    4. Muslim apostates of any variety.
    5. Germans and Austrians (the old school kind, the ones that thrive in reactionary circles these days)
    6. (alright, fine) Russians.

    Watch out for the giant ground sloths.

    by cskendrick on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:58:20 PM PDT

    •  But some of us are thinking of going to EU (4.00 / 4)

      Interesting comment:  but as the country slides downhill as to all but the upper corporate types, why would say Australians and Europeans want to become American citizens.  Europeans are becoming quite nationalistic about the EU and we are bankrupting ourselves -- do not take it for granted that we will remain #1 as we bankrupt ourselves thru unnecessary wars and shifting money to the upper upper classes.  

      At such a time - there may be no social security for aging people and there may be no medical insurance for aging people - and corps will pull jobs overseas -- so unless citizens make a real effort to take over the govmt -- come on, what will we be in say 25 years?  People aren't paying attention --

      Democrats, Make it Work. You have until November to bring your electorate in.

      by xanthe on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:58:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Great Post -- Really Great Post (none / 0)

        Most of the EU would not wish to abandon a successful political revolution.

        But there are always Tories, ready to take their football and go home.

        We had a few, so will the Europeans.

        And my recruitment list for neocons was highly focused on eastern Europe, too, where the choice of dominance by Russia, or dominance by Germany and Friends, is seen as both either-or and not so clear as to which is a superior long-term investment.

        Again, a splendid point.

        Watch out for the giant ground sloths.

        by cskendrick on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 05:44:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Australians are not that stupid (none / 0)

      In case you haven't noticed, George's war isn't too popular in Australia

      I haven't noticed any South Americans or South Africans who are willing to help George

      The Serbs might be willing, but we would have to promise not to interfere when they invade Bosnia after they finish our little job

      The Indians have already said no

      the Armenians and Georgians are occupied in their own civil wars

      Isreali settlers ???

      Muslim apostates ???

      Germans, Austrian, Russians ???

      Have you seen the public protests against the Invasion of Iraq in Europe ???

      face it folks, there aint nobdy available to fight George's war

      by knowthings on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 02:06:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The big E's (none / 0)

        We're forgetting Estonia and Eritrea!

        "You can't awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."-Navajo saying.

        by quartzite on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 05:28:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not saying who WANTS to (none / 0)

        I'm listing who would be wanted by the Pubbies.

        Also, the current list of Coalition of the Shilling and estimated troops in the former Iraq:

        United Kingdom    ~8,761 Europe
        Korea, South    3,600
        Italy    3,085 Europe again
        Poland    ~2,400-2500 Europe for the hat trick
        Ukraine    1,589 Europe
        Netherlands    1,345 Europe
        Romania    700 Europe
        Japan    ~550
        Denmark    496 Europe
        Bulgaria    ~485 Europe
        El Salvador    380
        Australia    ~400 Wow. Australia. Who da thunk it?
        Georgia    300 Europe (technically)
        Mongolia    180
        Azerbaijan    151 Europe (technically again)
        Portugal    128 Europe
        Latvia    122 Europe
        Czech Republic    ~110 Europe
        Lithuania    105 Europe
        Slovakia    105 Europe
        Albania    71 Europe
        Estonia    55 Europe
        Tonga    ~45
        Macedonia    33 Europe
        Kazakhstan    29
        Moldova    12 Europe
        Norway    10 Europe

        Sorry, but though the idea of European opposition to the Bushies give me all sorts of warm and fuzzies, the numbers just don't support such a contention.

        Watch out for the giant ground sloths.

        by cskendrick on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 06:49:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]