Would John McCain Institute a Draft in January? Or Would We Wait Until February?

Maybe I've just missed it-- perhaps because of all the breathless distractions about Obama's pastor and bowling score-- but I could swear the corporate media isn't informing their audience that a vote for John McCain is a vote for the re-instatement of a military draft. Now, call me naive, but I have to believe that even his barbeque buddies would agree that most voters would be more interested in a discussion of the prospects of a draft-- something McCain's plans absolutely guarantee-- than in Obama's lack of skill on the bowling alley. (John Stewart actually showed a clip of some Fox talking head suggesting he should have "stuck to the hoops.")

Last week I was reminiscing about my very first arrest, which was for protesting against the draft in 1967. If the media is able to mislead voters drastically enough so that McCain actually gets into the White House, there will be many more arrests at many more protests all over America.

McCain's policies-- whatever the meaning about his constant rhetorical stumblings about Iraq and Iran, Sunni and Shi'a, and 100 years in Iraq-- can't be put in place without a military draft. (By the way, when I was protesting in 1967 Nixon was coming up with a strategy about how to make the American people vote for him-- by claiming to have "a plan." McCain also claims to have "a plan"-- to capture Osama bin-Laden-- so one wonders why he doesn't share this with his pals George W. and Cheney.)

Republicans are forever hectoring about how we should just do whatever the generals tell us to. That's typical right wing cynicism since generals don't make policy in the U.S.-- elected officials do-- and since every single general who has spoken out professionally in a way that didn't hew completely to Bush-Cheney dogma has been sacked. So listen to the generals? Which ones? The Bush toadies or the ones who helped Darcy Burner come up with the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq?

Today's Washington Post mentions a hearing yesterday at the Senate Armed Services Committee in which Army Vice Chief of Staff, General Richard Cody, put his career in jeopardy, like so many before him have done, by implicitly criticizing the incompetence of the Bush Regime.

"I've never seen our lack of strategic depth be where it is today," said Cody, who has been the senior Army official in charge of operations and readiness for the past six years and plans to retire this summer.

This morning Brandon Friedman at VetVoice analyzed the session in light of McCain's aggressive military agenda.

Cody laments the "lack of balance" in today's Army, and says the "current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies... Current operational requirements for forces and insufficient time between deployments require a focus on counterinsurgency training and equipping to the detriment of preparedness for the full range of military missions." The stress on the fighting men and women, their families and the equipment is at dangerous levels.