Your Warblogger problem-and mine.... I've never considered myself a Warblogger, though somehow Gene Expression is listed on Warblogger Watch (I suspect they believe we wage a war against the disabled-actually we try and have a more puffed-up self-image, we style ourselves Darwin's Wolves, devouring the ignorant to sate our intellectual hungers). I value Instapundit greatly, but find myself ignoring most of his links to pro-war stuff just because I've seen it over and over and over.... Though I come from a far land, the United States concerns me more than distant despotates. Occasionally-godless does post an Iraq related blurb. But I think both of us would much rather wage war against the enemies within-the gullible, the infirm, the moronic and the swarthy-skinned! (OK-that was a joke, I'm rather more than swarthy myself-and some would say the former as well) I guess my old libertarian-leanings show through in my lack of enthusiasm for war and foreign entanglements. My opinion toward the Israel issue for instance is that we should treat it with a not-so-benign neglect. Jews and Muslims in the "Holy Land" seem only to see the hard cruel face of their God-let them bask in His glare and reap the fruits of their own ill will. Again, here godless dissents, the Jews are too brainy for him to surrender to the clutches of Arabs who seem let their reptilian brain do the thinking. A high score on a MENSA-certified test always turns godless' hard-heart soft.... But for me, I have to say that the most crucial thing is that it is not me and mine who will do the fighting. I do not know anyone who's an active duty soldier-though I am acquainted with a reservist here and there. Most of those who I care about are scattered through graduate schools or bohemian enclaves along the Left coast and clustered around the edges of Eastern Ivory Towers. The men and women who will bleed and die simply are name-tags without faces to me. I agree with the Warbloggers that we need to hammer the Islamists down and beat them on the forge of liberalism into a shape more accommodating to peace and prosperity. And yet-the hammer that we will use will spark with the blood of men and women. It is a hammer of flesh and bone, not dead black iron. The United States army is a volunteer force, yes, but they are not mercenaries to dispatch. They are not samurais obeying the dictates of their daimyos like clock-work automatons. I'm not going to romanticize soldiers and soldiering of course. The few former active duty soldiers I did meet who had cashed in and were making good on the promise of college were crass and hard men. That being said-it is their very fallibility, their humanity that should make us think twice. Of course a common retort is what is an army for but attack to the enemy? Well, to defend the homeland actually. Projecting one's might on a whim to batter those who might threaten us typifies the behavior of a totalitarian state where the head of the snake is the autocrat who views human beings as living chess pieces, animated wood to smash upon the board of play without thought for the families that such actions might effect. Of course I bow to the seeming inevitability of hostilities. I genuflect to facts at hand which indicate that the many headed hydra of Islamism must be decapitated in its homelands. But I will be honest, for all the libertarian I was, I might rather prefer that we Americans draft a citizen army, one out of many by lot, so that we might all bear the risks upon our shoulders. I would rather that we were Romans called up by our Republic, right or wrong, than sending away hired mercenaries of Carthage, reflecting the avaricious mercantile polity that burns the bones of their firstborn to their cruel pagan gods as some of our enemies accuse us to be. Update from Godless: I have to say that I disagree with Razib on several points. First of all, my position on Israel is a bit more nuanced than he makes out. See here for more details. As for the topics he brings up above, let's take them in turn:

The United States army is a volunteer force, yes, but they are not mercenaries to dispatch. They are not samurais obeying the dictates of their daimyos like clock-work automatons.

We pay soldiers to defend the country and kill people who are a threat to our country. If the nation decides that a fight is necessary, their job is to fight. I don't think it's justifiable to encourage soldiers to shirk their responsibility.

Projecting one's might on a whim to batter those who might threaten us typifies the behavior of a totalitarian state where the head of the snake is the autocrat who views human beings as living chess pieces, animated wood to smash upon the board of play without thought for the families that such actions might effect.

Huh? Are you claiming that a first strike would make the US indistinguishable from a "totalitarian state"? I strongly disagree with you here, Razib. The fact is that a pre-emptive strike can very well promote the cause of liberty. The obvious example is (of course) Hitler pre-1939...had a united Europe struck then, we wouldn't have had a much bigger problem later on. As for whether generals view soldiers as "living pawns"...well, I actually think this is true. But it's not as reprehensible as it first sounds. Any executive needs to divorce personal feelings from the task at hand, especially when discharging unpleasant business. Sometimes you have to make hard choices. A CEO's decision to fire thousands of workers to increase profits will (perhaps) benefit those workers who remain. A general's decision to order troops to risk their lives will (perhaps) save the lives of other troops or civilians. Personally, I'd much rather have a general/CEO who could prosecute a war effectively than one who was afraid of sustaining a single casualty. Would such an individual be "uncaring"? Perhaps, but I submit that callousness is far preferable to maundering emotion.

I would rather that we were Romans called up by our Republic, right or wrong, than sending away hired mercenaries of Carthage, reflecting the avaricious mercantile polity that burns the bones of their firstborn to their cruel pagan gods

A volunteer is a more effective soldier than a conscript. A draft would only be necessary if we lacked manpower, and at this point our military doesn't. Yearning for a draft to promote "equality of responsibility" is in my mind wrongheaded. The main point is that we will not prosecute the war more effectively if we have a draft . Indeed, a draft would hurt our war readiness by reducing both morale and the competence of the average soldier. In wartime, I know I would much prefer a competent (if callous) general to a Colin Powell-esque "facilitator". And I would much prefer a rugged, trained, volunteer soldier to a hapless conscript. It seems to me that such a preference is nothing more than a preference for victory over defeat.