What BTD said.

Your joke about killing millions of innocent people is hilarious.

I have to say that I don't have anything to add to the conversation either, mostly because it seems we can't "fight wars" and "win wars" anymore. They just aren't the same. You'd think that after 50 years of failing in wars on the other side of the world we'd have figured that out and not tried to do the same damn thing again.

Yes, I agree with GD, that we needed to invade Afg. after 9/11, but thinking about it now, if the goal was to rout Al Quaeda, did we think it would be the kind of war where they would surrender, peace would prevail, and we'd leave with a handshake?

I think we better come to grips with the fact that we as a nation can't do sh.t about what goes on in some other country without entering the now proverbial quagmire. And if that's the case, is it really worth all the damages, ie. dead Americans, dead foreign civilians, a disrupted country, and an angry public both in and outside of the US? (I'm not saying this isn't necessarily worth it in Afg, but if it IS, then we all have to shut up and face the burdens. It's much like relying on the "free market" to deal with financial bubbles but then crying when they burst. It's the nature of the free market.)

Or rather, as the pundits have been saying for 8 years and longer....what does victory look like? Do our leaders know? Did they know going in? If they changed the definition of victory in the middle of the conflict, then we've all been swindled, bait and switched, scam scam scam scam baked beans and scam.

Can, too. Only we need to do it 110%, which requires a lot of "boots on the ground", which requires a draft and for which there is no political will or popular support.

If a war is not worth a draft and the resulting flack from the general U.S. populace, then it's not worth fighting. No more wars on the cheap.

I was just reading about how many other wars that we have fought have been done "cheaply". The Revolutionary War and the Civil War had poor funding and the same wrangling over cost that our recent wars have.

I haven't read enough about WWII to find out whether it had the same problem but I think having a military attack by a foreign gov't on our soil plus oh yeah, Hitler, made that war (or rather, those wars) something no one would oppose.

I have to say I agree with you in a very broad way - if a war is not worth a draft, then it's not worth fighting. I'm sure there's gray area to be found there somewhere, but still...

Perhaps the gray area is a military which had enough troops when the war started, but as it dragged on personnel numbers began to shrink despite stop-losses and recalls as people stopped enlisting, re-enlisting. So now a war that began with sufficient manpower no longer has that man power.

Afghanistan started 8 years ago. The fresh 18 year old's who enlisted right after 9/11 are now 26, if they served out an 8 year contract. People who turn 18 this year were 10 when it began. They are no longer enlisting in a military that was more about life experience and college money with a chance of seeing combat and instead enlisting in a military where they will more than likely end up in a combat zone (somewhere) and life experience & college money come later.

I gave myself a deadline for finding a job. If I hadn't found one by my next birthday attempting OCS for the Air Force was at the top of the last of my options. I won't hide that the fact that we are at war, and live in the climate that we do ranked that option at the top of my last options.

I think a decent number of people thought that it was not our war.

Regarding Pearl Harbor, perhaps it's hair splitting, and I'm guessing, too, but I would think the emotional resonance came from the attack being on our military combined with the loss of life, rather than on "our soil." I don't know how attached we were then to a possession 3,000 miles west of a state that didn't even have a baseball team yet.

I'd agree if the military agreed that everyone who was fit to serve was fit to serve.