I'm working on the iPad, and I'm not very adept at cutting and pasting, so there will probably be no links. And you'll have to trust me on the veracity of my facts. Just remember that I was a docent at the National D-Day Museum, so I'm pretty accurate on my WWII era trivia.
I've been thinking.
That can be dangerous sometimes, according to Pepper.
Anyway, I now postulate that the Young President's administration has potentially been doing an intentional run-up to this Ukraine mess, coupled with the tanked economy, in order to reach a more sinister end.
Hence, a significant reduction in the Defense budget was recently announced due to policy changes in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with a need to pare the budget. Also, we will shortly experience a drawdown in troop strength which will reduce our military readiness to levels not experienced since the isolationist period following WWI. Seriously.
So, if we find ourselves needing to amp up troop strength because Russia is rattling swords, how can we prepare to pitch in to help our "treaty" partner, Ukraine? (While Ukraine is not a member of NATO, it is a signatory to the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, which was designed to give some comfort to the emerging nations after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today, Kiev demanded enforcement of the accord.)
Facing similar need, after WWI, when our troop strength was cripplingly impaired, what did we do to prepare to save the world as the bad guys were gearing up to overtake as much of it as they could?
We instituted a draft, of course!
So, here comes The Draft!
But, you might say, what about those opposed to VIOLENT military service? We mustn't compel them to engage in conduct that they find distasteful! Of course not. So, what if there will be an option for nominal "national service?" The Young President could then have his "civilian force," first alluded to in the campaign for his first term. And, then what?
I leave you to ponder that.
And, seriously. Think about it.