|
They don't care if they get it in any ideologically consistent manner. They don't care much what they pay to get it. And I don't think they care much about losing the elections in 2006 and 2008, because they figure they can win no matter what, and if they don't, the people calling the shots will still get more money from Iraqi oil than they would get by running the WHite House and Congress without getting Iraq. So whether they instate a draft or raise wages or find some other method of getting what they want, including (and we have all forgotten this, but it will come back up) limited nuclear weapons, they will do it first and worry about the consequences afterwards.
I understand your economic statement, and it's a good point. My point is that they are not concerned with the best way to raise more troops, and could care less about the market or any other ideal they use in their arguments. They are pure reactionary, and make up the ideology to support what they are going to do, not the other way around. They will want more troops. They will thus try whatever emotional argument will work to get them, and proimise whatever lies they have to to get them. Cost, effectiveness, beliefs about the way the market works, none of that will matter to them.
|