Who will answer the call to arms?

What a difference a day makes. Yesterday, I had an article quoting Fred Kagan as declaring we had the numbers to execute a troop escalation in Iraq. I questioned his math then and sure enough, today Glenn Greenwald uncovers new information that contradicts that claim, including a statement from our military leaders indicating they only have 9000 men to send. This is acknowledged in an executive summary of Mr. Kagan's battle plan to "win" in Iraq. It states:

The president must request a substantial increase in ground forces end strength. This increase is vital to sustaining the morale of the combat forces by ensuring that relief is on the way. The president must issue a personal call for young Americans to volunteer to fight in the decisive conflict of this generation.

This of course brings us back to the question, who will fight? The military has exhausted it's supply of those desperate enough to enlist or those who are willing to voluntarily walk their talk on supporting a military solution to the problem. So where are we to find new enlistees?

Like Glenn, I don't think you have to be a soldier to support the war and although I've often been accused of using the chickenhawk argument when I point out the most vociferous war supporters, who opine on strategy as if they had a clue about the reality of combat, are not the ones with boots on the ground at the front lines -- I have never actually used the term to describe a particular person.

And I don't blame the war hawks for being afraid to risk their lives even as I criticize their apparent casual disregard for the risk they advocate for others. I understand the fear of going into actual battle. I'm afraid of that too. I don't think that makes them bad people. I think they're probably good people who are advocating a bad strategy. However, I have and will continue to question the strength of their convictions, if they are able-bodied enough to walk their talk and don't enlist.

So as we wrestle as a nation with the notion of escalating or drawing down troops in Iraq, Glenn, as usual, defines the current situation eloquently.

In light of the current troop shortages impeding Kagan's plans -- to say nothing of plans for confronting other countries and Terrorists beyond Iraq -- how can those who strut around as Churchillian defenders of American greatness in the face of Evil possibly justify their ongoing refusal of this call? The World War II values they are constantly invoking in order to justify endless war weren't defined by war cheerleaders but by war fighters.

There it is in a nutshell. Until now, our troop strength has been sufficient -- barely -- to justify cheering on our soldiers from the sidelines. But our military leaders state unequivocally that we simply do not have the numbers to press forward with an escalation. If this is truly the conflict of a lifetime, as the remaining war supporters would have us believe, then it's time for them to step up and prove they believe it by sacrificing their personal comfort and safety for the cause - just as those heros from our previous justifiable military actions answered their country's call.

I might suggest that self-appointed chief cheerleader Fred Kagan set the example for the young people of America he so blithely calls to arms and be the first to enlist. I understand he's an able bodied young American himself.